Madras High Court
Dhanasekar vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 3 November, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.11.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.11759 and 11760 of 2016
1. Dhanasekar
2. Ponniah
3. Aruneswari
4. Selvakumar
5. Revathi ...Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 to 5
Vs.
1. The Sub Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
(Crime No.41 of 2015) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Krishnaveni ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in
C.C.No.193 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
For R1 : Ms.M.Ananthadevi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.M.Ramu
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.193 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, as against the petitioners.
2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the case has been registered for the offence under Sections 294(b), 406, 498(A) and 506(i) IPC., as against the petitioners and taken cognizance for in C.C.No.193 of 2016. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3.Heard Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.M.Ananthadevi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
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 case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016 " 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.
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:
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016 “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.”
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:
http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016 "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...................." http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016 The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.193 of 2016, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
9. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.
10. Accepting the said submission, the personal appearance of the petitioners 2 to 5 is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. The petitioners 2 to 5 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.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.11.2020 vsd To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Tuticorin District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsd Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22538 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.11759 and 11760 of 2016 03.11.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8