Madras High Court
M.Anandan vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 September, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022
and
Crl.O.P.Nos.14001 and 14003 of 2022
M.Anandan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police,
B-1, Siva Kanchi Police Station,
Kanchipuram District.
Crime No. 11 of 2017.
2.M.Masthan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records in C.C.No.158 of 2019 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.158 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the owner of the biriyani shop. It is alleged that on 30.112017, at about 07.00.p.m., the petitioner came in a swift car and purchased biriyani and thereby refused to pay the amount. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and also threatened with dire consequences.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he never know about the second respondent. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 384 and 506(1) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 158 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022 Kanchipuram. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Heard Mr.M Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
6. On perusal of records, there are specific allegations as against the petitioner and there are materials to attract the offence under Sections 294(b), 384 and 506(1) of IPC.
7. 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:-
" 12.So far as the second ground is Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022 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, Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022 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 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 Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022 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. ..............
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 Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022 points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.158 of 2019 in Crime No.11 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. 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. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file another quash petition on the ground of compromise arises between the parties.
11. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
08.09.2022 Index:Yes/no Speaking/non speaking order Sma G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022 Sma To
1.The Inspector of Police, B-1, Siva Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram District.
Crime No. 11 of 2017.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.21546 of 2022
and Crl.O.P.Nos.14001 and 14003 of 2022 08.09.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis