Madras High Court
M. Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Police on 5 November, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15960 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15960 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9468 & 9469 of 2019
1. M. Sudhakar
2. T.Asaithambi
3. N.V.Kasimurugan ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The Inspector of Police
Aruppukottai Town,
Virudhunagar District.
2.Velraj ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the case in
C.C.No.445 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I
Sivilliputhur in Crime No.75 of 2016 on the file of respondent police
dated 28.01.2016 on the file of first Respondent police for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 102
I.P.C r/w. Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.S.Kani
For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate(crl.side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15960 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.445 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Sivilliputhur.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.
3. A careful perusal of entire materials available on record, the final report discloses a prima facie offence against the petitioners and there is no reason to interfere with the same. It is also 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15960 of 2019 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.
4. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 - 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15960 of 2019 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.” The above judgment is squarely application to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. It is seen that the proceedings in C.C.No.445 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Sivilliputhur, is pending from the month of January 2019. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Sivilliputhur, is directed to complete the proceedings, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15960 of 2019
6. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first and second petitioners are being aged persons, and hence, the presence of the first and second petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.
7. Accepting the said submission, the personal appearance of the first and second petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. The first and second petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.
05.11.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Ls To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I Sivilliputhur.
2.The Inspector of Police Aruppukottai Town, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15960 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.
Ls Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15960 of 2019 05.11.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6