Madras High Court
Mayan vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2258 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2258 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1015 & 1016 of 2018
1.Mayan
2.M. Shanthi
3.K. Shankar
4.K. Algarsamy
5.K. Malaisamy
6.K. Sekar
7.S. Dhanam ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.The Inspector of Police
Kalayarkovil Police Station,
Sivagangai District ,
in Cr.No. 20/2016
2.Shankar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the Charge
Sheet in C.C.No.308 of 2016 pending before the Learned Judicial
Magistrate No. I, Sivagangai District and Quash the same as illegal
as against the petitioners alone.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Jeyaprakash
For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate (crl.side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2258 of 2018
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.308 of 2016 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sivagangai District.
2.Heard both sides.
3.A careful perusal of entire materials available on record, the charge sheet 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.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019
- Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2258 of 2018 the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.
5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. ......................
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2258 of 2018 record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
4. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.308 of 2016. However, considering the case is of the year 2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sivagangai District, is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.308 of 2016 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2258 of 2018
5.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second and seventh petitioners are being a ladies, hence, the presence of the second and seventh petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.
6.Accepting the said submission, the personal appearance of the second and seventh petitioners alone is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. The second and seventh 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.
7.With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.09.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Ls http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2258 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Ls To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police Kalayarkovil Police Station, Sivagangai District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2258 of 201809.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6