Madras High Court
Rajendran @ Kutyy Rajendran vs State Rep. By on 3 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.6075 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6075 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.3890 and 3891 of 2025
Rajendran @ Kutyy Rajendran ... Petitioner
Vs
State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
PEW - Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
Criem No.873 of 2019 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Crl.P.C/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for
the records relating to the S.C.4 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Asst. Sessions
Judge, Krishnagiri and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s B.Sasikala
For Respondent : M/s J.R.Archana
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in S.C.4 of 2023
on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:15:12 pm )
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials
placed on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused
were found in possession of 11,000 litres of rectified spirit. Hence, the
complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime
No.873 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A)
of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC read with
Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules, 2000. After
completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has
been taken cognizance in S.C.4 of 2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions
Judge, Krishnagiri.
5. It is seen that the petitioner is a habitual offender and so far he has
been involved in five previous cases. Further, the petitioner raised a ground that
there is a procedural irregularity. However, it is not the ground to quash the
entire proceeding. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner can be
considered only during the trial before the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:15:12 pm )
6. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated
02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as
follows:-
" 12.So far as the second ground is
concerned, we are of the view that the High Court
while hearing the application under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the
statement of the witnesses and record a finding that
there were inconsistencies in their statements and,
therefore, there was no prima facie case made out
against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be
done only in the trial while deciding the issues on
the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while
deciding the appeal arising out of the final order
passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482
Cr.P.C. proceedings.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we
allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and
restore the aforementioned complaint case to its
original file for being proceeded with on merits in
accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:15:12 pm )
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of
the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of
Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held
as follows:
“19. After perusing the impugned order and
on hearing the submissions made by the learned
senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that
the impugned order passed by the High Court is not
sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on
several disputed facts and allowed the petition.
Defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact
that the High Court, in this case, went into the most
minute details, on the allegations made by the
appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the
respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court
has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20.In our view, the assessment made by the
High Court at this stage, when the matter has been
taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is
completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:15:12 pm )
dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows:
"9. It is too late in the day to seek reference
to any authority for the proposition that while
invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for
quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should
not 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 constitute
certain offences complained of. The Court may also
be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions
requisite for taking cognizance have been complied
with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained
in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would
not constitute the offence alleged.
..............
13. A look at the complaint filed by the
appellant would show that the appellant had
incorporated the ingredients necessary for
prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged.
The question whether the appellant will be able to
prove the allegations in a manner known to law would
arise only at a later stage...................."
The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:15:12 pm )
raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered
in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceeding in S.C.4 of 2023 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.03.2025
(½)
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:15:12 pm )
To
1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
2. The Inspector of Police,
PEW - Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:15:12 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:15:12 pm )
