Madras High Court
K.Srinivasan vs State Rep.By on 13 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.2724 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.2724 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.1588 of 2023
K.Srinivasan .... Petitioner
vs.
1. State Rep.by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Salem District.
2. R.Rajamanickam(Died)
3.Selvi .... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records of the charge sheet in C.C.No.501 of 2021
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem in Crime
No.20 of 2014 dated 03.06.2014 on the file of the 1 st respondent police
and quash the same.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.2724 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vediappan
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.N.Umapathi
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.501 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.VI, Salem.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is arrayed as
second accused and his father namely, Krishnapadayachi was arrayed as
A1 in C.C.No.501 of 2021. The petitioner's father is the adjacent land
owner of Mr.Chinnaraj Konar having been residing in his property by
way of constructing a house for the past 50 years, After the death of the
said Mr.Chinnaraj Konar, the first accused had created a forged patta in
the name with respect to the subject matter of the property that belongs to
Mr.Chinnaraj Konar and further the 1st accused executed a registered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
Settlement Deed dated 07.05.2006 vide Doc.No.954/2006 on the file of
SRO, Valapadi, Salem District to an extent of 2 acres 28 cents. The 5th
accused was the Sub-Registrar, Valapady, Salem District without
verifying the title of the 1st accused and registered the settlement deed to
the petitioner and A3. Hence, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed a final
report as against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 465, 467, 468,
471, 420, 506(ii), & 120(B) r/w 109 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has come forward with the present criminal original petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent
police registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2014 for the offences under
Sections .147, 148, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506(ii), 120(B) r/w 109 of
I.P.C, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.501 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem.
Hence he prayed to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
5. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the respondent
registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2014 for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 506(ii), 120(B) r/w 109 of I.P.C.
After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and
the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.501 of 2021 by the trial
Court and the same is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding,
the petitioner has filed the present petition.
6. 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 and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as
against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
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
161(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. 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 482 of
Cr.P.C.
8. 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: 15/04/2025 01:53:14 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.
9. 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 final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.501 of 2021 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete
the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of
this Order.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
13.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kkd
To
1. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Salem District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI,
Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kkd
13.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
