Madras High Court
T.Sunitha Shri vs The State Rep.By on 28 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.Nos.8544 and 8545 of 2025
T.Sunitha Shri ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Rep.by,
The Inspector of Police,
Sriperumbudur Police Station,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
2. Sri Venkatesan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 538 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in connection
with the Charge Sheet in CC.No.217 of 2024 in Crime No.702 of 2019 on
06.11.2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Sriperumbudur.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arumugam
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.217 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur.
Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 07:54:40 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had published an advertisement in OLX to sell the college canteen. On seeing the advertisement, the defacto complainant approached the accused with an intention to purchase the same. It is stated that the accused was running the canteen business on a contractual basis. By giving false assurances that the canteen contract would be transferred in the name of the defacto complainant, the accused received huge amount and cheated the defacto complainant. It is further stated that the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.702 of 2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(1) and 420 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent Police filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.217 of Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 07:54:40 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025 2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A2. No amount has been received by the petitioner and she has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, she had received meager amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, the entire canteen was taken over by the College Management and as such, the petitioner was unable to transfer the same, in favour of the defacto complainant. Even according to the complainant, one Niranjan received the advance amount from the second respondent.
6. A perusal of records revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(1) and 420 of IPC.
7. In this regard, 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:-
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 07:54:40 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025 " 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.
8. 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:Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 07:54:40 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025 “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.”
9. 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 07:54:40 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025 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...................." The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 07:54:40 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025
10. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.217 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur. The personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and she 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 complete the trial in C.C.No.217 of 2024, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.04.2025 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 07:54:40 pm ) Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.12972 of 2025
28.04.2025 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 07:54:40 pm )