Madras High Court
N.Nanthagopal vs Boopathi on 27 June, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
and
Crl.MP.Nos.8304, 8306, 8309, 8310, 8312, 8313, 8316,8321,8328,8330
of 2020
N.Nanthagopal ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20065 of 2020)
Dr.S.Padmavathi ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20066 of 2020)
K.Gomathi ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20068 of 2020)
K.Viswanathan ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20069 of 2020)
S.Padmavathi ... Petitioner
(in Crl.OP.20072 of 2020)
Vs.
Boopathi ... Respondent
(in Crl.OP.Nos.)
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.T.C
No.311 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
Court,Paramathi and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Padmanabhan
For Respondent : No Appearance
(Notice Served)
COMMON O R D E R
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.311 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (herein after referred as NI Act) as against the petitioners.
2. These petitioners have been arrayed as A5, A2, A7, A11 and A9 in STC.No.311 of 2020 respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of N.I.Act.
2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
3. A perusal of the available records reveals that the respondent is a Agriculturist and doing Real Estate Business. All the petitioners/accused persons are the Trustees of the first accused. They are running Polytechnic College viz., Venkatramana Polytechnic College at Vellianai, Karur. It further reveals that all the trustees have jointly approached the respondent on 10.04.2019 and borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- for the improvement of the Trust. In order to repay the said amount, the accused persons have issued cheque for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. It was presented for collection and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason that “ funds insufficient”. At the time of issuance of cheque, they were Trustees of the first accused. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to be held responsible for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no absolute grounds to quash the complaint lodged by the respondent and these petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4. 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 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020 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.4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
5. 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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020 has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order 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. ..............6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
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 raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.311 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi. However, 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.
7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020
8. Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
27.06.2022 Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Vv To The Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv Crl.O.P.Nos.20065, 20066, 20068, 20069 and 20072 of 2020 and Crl.MP.Nos.8304, 8306, 8309, 8310, 8312, 8313, 8316,8321,8328,8330 of 2020 27.06.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis