Madras High Court
S.Ramalingam vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 18 April, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7013 of 2022
and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 4820 and 4821 of 2022
1. S.Ramalingam
2. Muthu ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Manamadurai
Sivagangai District
2. The Inspector of Police
Thirupachethy Police Station
Sivagangai District
3. Muthaiah ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records pertaining to Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2021 on the file of the
Additional District and Sessions Court for Exclusive trial of PCR Act cases,
Sivagangai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
No.1& 2 Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court for Exclusive trial of PCR Act cases, Sivagangai .
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.03.2021 at about 10.20 a.m., when the defacto complainant was in the S.K.Rajendran Tea Shopat Thirupachethy main road, at that time the accused persons came there to the adjacent tea chop ie., Malairaj Tea shop and stated that again has to give petition inorder to remove the defacto complainant from his job, who is the Former Panchayat Board Secretary. By then both the accused assaulted the defacto complainant by using his caste name with criminal intimidation, hence the case came to be registered.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides.
6. 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., wherein it is held 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4
7. 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 has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
8. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
"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 points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
` 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2021 on the file of the Additional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 District and Sessions Court for Exclusive trial of PCR Act cases, Sivagangai . The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners are dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the 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. 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.
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P(MD) No.4820 of 2022 stands dismissed and Crl.M.P(MD) No.4821 of 2022 stands allowed.
18.04.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Court for Exclusive trial of PCR Act cases, Sivagangai
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Manamadurai Sivagangai District
3. The Inspector of Police Thirupachethy Police Station Sivagangai District
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J., aav Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7013 of 2022 18.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis