Madras High Court
A.Thennarasu vs Union Territory Of Puducherry Rep. By on 24 April, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 24148 of 2017
Crl.M.P.Nos.13965 & 13966 of 2017
A.Thennarasu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union Territory of Puducherry Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
CB_CID Police Station,
Puducherry.
2. C.Palaniappan
S/o.Chellappan
Deputy General Manager
UCO Bank, Zonal Office,
No.328, Thambuchetty Street,
Chennai. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the
records relating to the C.C.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Puducherry and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Shanmuga Velayutham
Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Palanivel
For R1 : Mr.V.Balamurugane
Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
http://www.judis.nic.in For R2 : Mr.V.Suthakar
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Puducherry and quash the same.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC r/w S3ction 34 of IPC as against the petitioner and filed charge sheet in C.C.No.43 of 2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC r/w S3ction 34 of IPC. He further submitted that all the points raised by the petitioner has to considered only during the trial. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this petition.
4. Heard Mr.Shanmuga Velayutham, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Palanivel, learned http://www.judis.nic.in counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned 3 Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Suthakar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 2nd respondent.
5. It is seen from the charge there are specific averments to attract the offences as against the petitioner. Further it is also seen that there are materials to connect the petitioner to the offences. More over all the points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial. The petitioner at liberty to raise all the points before the Court below during the trial.
6. Further, in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors. in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in to a conviction or not.4
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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that 5 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."
It is also 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 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.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2017. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.
The petitioner 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. Considering the fact that the calender case is of the year 2017, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.04.2019 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ssr http://www.judis.nic.in 7 To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry
2. The Inspector of Police, CB_CID Police Station, Puducherry.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ssr Crl.O.P.No. 24148 of 2017 Crl.M.P.Nos.13965 & 13966 of 2017 24.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in