Madras High Court
M.Ramya vs State Rep. By on 12 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.3677 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.3677 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2430 & 2431 of2025
M.Ramya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Deevatipatti Police Station,
Salem District.
2. Ambethkarmadhu ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records
connected with the case in P.R.C.No.9 of 2024, on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and quash the same insofar as the petitioner
is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Rajaguru
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.3677 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in
P.R.C.No.9 of 2024, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Omalur, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 294(b), 332, 353, 505(2), 506(1) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992
in Crime No.669 of 2021, as against this petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
is a Village Administrative Officer in Kanavaipudhur village and the
people residing in Ambedkar Colony demanded to install VCK political
parties flag post in front of the Village Panchayat Office
Kanavaaipudhur, however the same was opposed by the members of
Pattali Makkal Katchi. In this background, on 23.09.2021 at about 10.00
a.m., when the defacto complainant was on duty, the petitioner along
with other accused persons were attempted to install the VCK flag post.
When the police personnel warned and stopped them, the accused
persons pulled the police force and abused them with filthy languages.
They also pelleted the stones and soda bottles and damaged the police
vehicle. Hence, the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the
petitioner was not in Salem and she was in Chennai on the date of
alleged occurrence. Further, there is no overt-act as against the petitioner
in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Without any base,
the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.669 of 2021 for
the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 332, 353, 505(2), 506(1) of
IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of
Damage & Loss) Act, as against the petitioner and the same has been
taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.9 of 2024 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Omalur. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit
that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been
examined in this case.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
6. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second
respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.669 of
2021, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 332, 353, 505(2),
506(1) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property
(Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992. After completion of
investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been
taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.9 of 2024 by the trial Court and it is
pending. To quash the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner filed the
present petition.
7. On perusal of the statement and the charge sheet revealed
that there are specific allegation as against all the accused persons, since
a group of persons went there and indulged in illegal activities. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4)
SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the
petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High
Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses
and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the
accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the
issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the
appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on
the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8. Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment
dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of
M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the
petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All
that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the
complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain
offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the
preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or
not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if
accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether
the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to
law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
10. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal
proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this
state. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the charge sheet
cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
11. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined
to quash the proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
grounds before the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and she shall
be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.
However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of
furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and at the time of passing
judgment.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
12.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Omalur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Deevatipatti Police Station,
Salem District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2430 & 2431 of2025
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 03:21:47 pm )
