Madras High Court
Sureshbabu @ Sunrise Suresh vs State Represented By on 14 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.7554 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.7554 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.4865 & 4866 of 2025
Sureshbabu @ Sunrise Suresh .... Petitioner
vs.
1. State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
D-2, Selvapuram Police Station,
Coimbatore City.
2. Manikandan@ Cable Manikandan .... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the proceedings as far as the
petitioner is concerned in S.C.No.104 of 2024 pending on the file of the
learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam
For R1 : Mr.J.R.Archanan
Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal
Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the the petitioner is
arrayed as 9th accused and he is the District Member in DMK. The
second respondent is running cable network in Selvapuram area and he is
also the DMK Area Secretary of Ward No.78. During the year 2016,
both the petitioner and the defacto complainant requested the DMK high
command seeking Councillor seat, the 2nd respondent's sister got seat to
contest in the said Ward, but no election took placed during the year,
there was previous enmity between the 2nd respondent and A1 to A9. A1
to A14 are close friends and all of them are work for the petitioner in
DMK party. A5 is the car driver of the petitioner. While so, on
17.10.2021, when the 2nd respondent and his friend while crossing
Rammoorthy road, A1, A5 along with Ganesh @ Thirunangai Kavitha
said to have abused the 2nd respondent by stating that he is doing politics
with the petitioner, being aggrieved over the words of the A1 and A5, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
2nd respondent attacked A1, A5 and another. Based on the complaint
lodged by A5, FIR in Cr.No.596/2021 was registered against the 2nd
respondent and one Sottai Kumar.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 18.10.2021, while
the 2nd respondent was sleeping outside his house, except A9, other
accused i.e. A1 to A8, A10 to A15 joined together, went to the house of
the 2nd respondent attacked the 2nd respondent and caused injuries to him.
Based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent initially FIR was
registered by the 1st respondent in Crime No.597/2021 for offences under
Sections 147, 148, 307 against A1 to A3 and other. Final report was
filed in S.C.No.104 of 2024 for offences under Section 147, 148, 307,
109, 120B, 323, 324, 149 IPC. The charge against the petitioner is for
offences under Sections 307 r/w109 of IPC and the same is pending on
the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present criminal
original petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that as per FIR, no allegation as against the petitioner/A1. After
recording the statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C, there was no
allegation as against the petitioner. Only after recording further
statement from the witnesses, the petitioner's name has been implicated
as the accused alleging that he constituted with the other accused persons
who attacked the second respondent. Hence he prayed to quash the
same.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
6. On perusal of the records would show that the petitioner is
the main accused, it is seen that on the complaint lodged by the 2nd
respondent, a case was registered 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 first
respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
C.C.No.501 of 2021 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the
said criminal proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petition.
7. 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
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
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.
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
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 final
report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all
the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age of the petitioner,
the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he 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
BNSS and at the time of passing judgment. The trial Court is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of copy of this Order.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
14.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kkd
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
D-2, Selvapuram Police Station,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
Coimbatore City.
2. The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kkd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
14.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
