Madras High Court
M/S.Coramandal Agencies vs The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 22 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 1035
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 15.10.2019
Pronounced on : 22.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P (MD) Nos.6125 and 8762 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.3988, 3989, 5524 and 5524 of 2019
1.M/s.Coramandal Agencies,
rep. by its Managing Partner
R.Veeramani.
2.R.Veeramani, Managing Partner,
M/s.Coramandal Agencies,
No.8, 2nd Street, Ganapathi Colony,
Chennai. ... Petitioner/A1 & A2 in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6125/2019
3.V.Siddarthan ... Petitioner/A5 in Crl.O.P.
(MD) No.8762 of 2019
Vs
1.The State rep by the Inspector of Police
Othakadai Police Station,
Madurai District.
2.M.Seetha
Village Administrative Officer,
Idayapatti Village,
Madurai North Taluk. ... Respondent/Complainant
1/24
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the impugned
proceedings in P.R.C.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Melur and quash the same as against these petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.I.Subramanian, senior counsel for
Mr. R.Anand in Crl.O.P.6125/2019
Mr.A.L.Somayaji, senior counsel for
Mr.M.Saravanan in Crl.O.P.8762/20109
For Respondent : Mr.A.Natarajan, State Public
Prosecutor assisted by
Mr.R.Anandharaj, APP
COMMON O R D E R
These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings as against these petitioners in P.R.C.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur as against the petitioner, having been taken cognizance for the offences under sections 447, 201, 379, 420, 430, 434, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304(ii) of I.P.C. r/w 511, 109, 114 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i), 3(ii) and 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and Sections 6 read with 3(a), 4(a) of Explosives Substance Act, 1908 r/w 120(B) of I.P.C.
2.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both petitions would submit that the petitioners are arraigned as A1, 2 2/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 and 5 and on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent registered a case in crime No.411 of 2012 as against 39 persons alleging that all the accused persons had entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuant to the said conspiracy, apart from quarrying of granite stones legally in the Government leased patta lands, have also used the said leased patta land as a cover and have quarried granite stones illegally in surrounding non patta lands belonging to the Government between the year 2007-2012, thereby causing financial loss to the Government.
3.The learned senior counsel would further submit that the 1st accused entered into a lease agreement with the lawful owner of the properties viz., Chandrasekaran on 11.07.1991 for conducting stone quarry and obtained a lease deed for the lands in S.No.63/5, 6, 8 to 15, 64/1 to 5 admeasuring 6 acres 84 cents and the lease is for a period of 15 years. Thereafter, the said Chandrasekaran died on 20.07.1992 and the legal heirs of Chandrasekaran sold the properties to the 1st accused company on 29.08.2002 and a lease agreement was entered into with the District Collector, Madurai in furtherance of the quarry lease granted by the Government in G.O.Ms.3(D) No.8, dated 17.01.1994 and accordingly, they carried out the quarrying activities 3/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 in the said leasehold area in accordance with law and without any violations and the lease period expired on 16.01.2004. Therefore, on 08.04.2003, A1 made a renewal application dated 08.04.2003 to the Government of Tamil Nadu. While the said application was pending with the Government, A1 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8044 of 2004 before this Court and this Court granted interim direction on 29.03.2004 and vide its final order dated 13.08.2008, this Court ordered to continue the quarry operation till the application for renewal is considered and disposed of by the Government. Based on the said order, A1 continued the quarrying operation till 06.10.2009. While being so, on 06.10.2009, the properties were sold out by a registered sale deed in favour of the 7th accused, who in turn, sold the entire extent to the 8th accused viz., P.R.P.Exports. Thereafter, the 8th accused proceeded with the quarrying operations.
4.The learned senior counsel further submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution and even the lease lands are under the control of A8 and A9 from 2010 onwards, who were conducting the quarrying operations. There were allegations of illegal mining operations in the adjacent Government lands and also 4/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 irrigation tank of the adjacent area. He further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2007, after two days from Pongal i.e., on 17.01.2007 at about 11.00 a.m., all the accused assembled with men and machinery etc. and trespassed into the Periasuriyanendal kanmai and damaged the Government properties using crowbar, heavy machines etc. But, in fact, at that time, the 2 nd petitioner/A2 was in USA and he left India on 13.01.2007 to participate in MBNA Fair 2007 (Monuments Builders of North America) at Cincinati City, Ohio State in USA and returned to Indian only on 25.01.2007. Therefore, he had no role/participation in the alleged conspiracy or any other act as alleged by the prosecution.
5.The learned senior counsel further submitted that insofar as A5 is concerned, he is the son of the 2nd petitioner/A2 and he was continuously away from India from 11.05.2006 to 18.06.2007 as he was studying MBA course in Columbia University, New York, USA. Even as per the entire records collected during the investigation and statement recorded by the witnesses, there is absolutely no iota of evidence and materials whatsoever to attract any of the offences as against the petitioners.
5/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019
6.The learned counsel further submitted that after the alienation of the properties by the petitioner on 06.08.2009 in favour of A7, A7 closed the erstwhile quarry pits by sand and started illegal quarrying operations in the remaining leasehold area and adjacent poramboke lands. From 17.01.1994 to 06.10.2004, there was valid lease between the 1st petitioner/1st accused and the Government from 07.10.2004 to 06.10.2009, the 1st petitioner quarried as per the order of this Court. Therefore, there is absolutely no violation whatsoever attracting any one of the penal provisions as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that it is a crystal clear case of well established Alibi with regard to 2nd petitioner through irrefutable documentary evidences and pointed out the endorsement made in the passport and also photographs, which were taken at USA.
7.The learned senior counsel further submitted that insofar as the statements recorded from L.Ws.17 to 19, they are nothing but stereo type one and all the statements are artificial one and unheard of. Since A2 and A5 were not in India at the time of alleged occurrence viz., after two days from Pongal in the year 2007, there would be no chance for the petitioners that they conspired with other accused persons and entered into the Suriyanendal Kanmai and 6/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 damaged the properties belonging to the Government by illegal quarrying as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated as against the petitioner is abuse of process of law and without any evidence or basis, the entire allegations foisted as against the petitioners with an ulterior motive and malafide intention. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the entire proceedings as against the petitioners herein.
8.Per contra, learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent registered a case in crime No.411 of 2012 as against 39 accused persons alleging that the 1st accused was granted lease in S.F.Nos.63 an 64 in various subdivisions to an extent of 2.00 hectares at Idayapatti village on 17.01.1994 for quarrying operations. During the quarry operations, the 1st accused company along with other accused persons illegally quarried in the Government parai poramboke in S.F.No.66 and Periyasuriyanenthal kanmoi in S.F.No.1/1 and committed theft of granite stones by using explosives substances and damaged the Government kanmoi and parai poramboke. It is alleged that due to the illegal mining, the water resources were ruined and they had also stored granite blocks in the Periyasurianenthal Kanmai in S.F.No.1/1 7/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 and also encroached kanmai and they dug bore well in S.F.No.67/1 and damaged the Government kanmoi.
9.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that on 05.11.1993, A1 applied for quarry lease in the lands comprised in S.F.No.63/1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 64/1 to 5 of Idaiyapatti village and the 1st accused was issued licence to quarry the said lands vide F.O.(3D) No. 8 Industrial (MMB1) Department dated 17.01.1994. The 2nd accused executed power of attorney to its Manager A3, who look after his quarrying activities. On the strength of power of attorney, A3 on behalf of the 1st accused entered into the lease agreement for those lands with one Chandrasekar for a period of 15 years, who is the owner of the said lands. After the death of the said Chandrasekaran, one Mohamed Fauzid purchased the said land from the legal heirs of Chandrasekar for the 1st accused. While being so, on 25.09.2009, A2 executed power of attorney in favour of A6. On the strength of the said power of attorney, A6 executed sale deed in respect of the leasehold area in favour of A7 on 16.02.2009. Subsequently, he sold out the said leasehold area to A9, who is one of the partners of A8 viz., P.R.P. Exports.
8/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019
10.The learned State Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioners along with other accused persons conspired together from the year 2007-12 and trespassed into the adjacent Government land viz., parai poramboke comprised in S.F.No.66, Periyasurianenthal kanmoi comprised in S.F.No.1, Kallankuthu poramboke in S.F.No.63/7 and the patta land in S.F.No.63/10 and all the accused removed the boundary stones with machineries and quarried granites illegally by using explosive substances and committed theft of granite stone from the above Government lands and caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.695.56 crores. Further, he submitted that due to the illegal mining, the water resources were ruined and cultivation in the area were also ruined. There is no water resources for the human being and animals. They also stored granite blocks in the Periyasurianenthalkulam kanmoi Government porambomke land in S.F.No.1/1 and also damaged kanmoi and they dug bore well in the Government poramboke land in S.F.No.67/1 and damaged the Government poramboke land and only in order to escape from the crime, the petitioner/accused persons have cleverly sold out the land to the 7th accused, who in turn, sold out the same to A8 and A9. Though the leasehold lands sold out in favour of A7 to A9, the seigniorage fees from 1994 to 2011 were paid in the 9/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 name of the 1st accused. The lease deed stands in the name of the 1st accused and owned by A2. A2 is the managing partner of A2.
11.The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that in the sale deed, the petitioners not only sold out the land, but also, the leasehold rights over the said property. Thereafter, they fabricated one letter as if it was sent to the Collector and also they transferred the leasehold rights. Therefore, the petitioners violated the procedure contemplated under Rule 37 of the Minor Mines and Minerals Concessions Rules. Accordingly, the leasehold right of the land cannot sold to other persons without getting prior permission from the Government. It shows the criminal conspiracy between all the accused persons and only, in order to escape from the clutches of law, the sale deeds created in favour of other persons.
12.The learned State Public Prosecutor further submitted that the quarrying process is not an one day process and it is a continuous process from the year 2007 - 2012. As such the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner cannot be considered before this Court that too under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., So far, the investigating Officer has investigated the case thoroughly by examining 80 witnesses, 53 10/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 documents and also seized 11 properties under attachment from the accused persons and all of them were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court. The sanction for prosecution was also obtained from the District Collector to file charge sheet for the offence under Sections 3(a), 4(a) of Explosives Substance Act, 1908. He further submitted that as per the valuation report given by the special team organised by the Government consisting of Deputy Director, Assistant Director and the Surveyor, the total value of the granites transported illegally from the leasehold area and from non lease area is about 695.56 crores. In addition to this, as per the damage certificate given by the Block Development Officer, Assistant Engineer of Panchayat Union, the cost of renovating the quarried trenches beyond leasehold area by these petitioner is to the tune of Rs.440.094 lakhs.
13.The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the quarry was not stopped on 06.10.2009 as contended by the petitioners. After the so called sale in favour of A7 to A9, the petitioners along with other accused persons continued their illegal mining in the Government lands and kanmoi and also paid seigniorage fees till 2011 in the name of A1. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of these quash petitions.
11/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019
14.Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.
15.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, 1st respondent registered a case in crime No.411 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 447, 201, 379, 420, 430, 434, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304(ii) of I.P.C. r/w 511, 109, 114 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i), 3(ii) and 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and Sections 6 read with 3(a), 4(a) of Explosives Substance Act, 1908 r/w 120(B) of I.P.C. and after completing the investigation, the 1st respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance and it is pending for committal in P.R.C.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur. There are totally 39 accused, in which, the petitioners are arraigned as A1, 2 and 5 respectively.
16.The crux of the complaint is that the 1st accused was granted leasehold right to quarry the land comprised in S.F.No.63/5,6,8 to 15 and 64/1,2,3,4,5 of Idayapatti village vide G.O.(3D) No.8 Industrial (MMB-1) Department dated 17.01.1994 under Rule 19-A of the Tamil 12/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 to an extent of 2 hectares (6 acres 84 cents) for a period of 10 years from 08.04.1994 to 07.04.2004. During the quarry operation, the petitioners along with other accused persons quarried illegally in the Government parai poramboke in S.F.No.66 in Periyasurianendhal kanmoi comprised in S.F.No.1/1, Kallankuthu promboke comprised in S.F.No.63/7 and non list patta lands comprised in S.F.No.63/10 part and thereby, they removed boundary stones with machineries and quarried granites illegally by using explosives substances and committed theft of granite stone in the above said Government land and thereby, all the accused caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.695.56 crores. Further, as per the damage certificate given by the Government officials, the cost to renovate the quarried trenches would be 440.094 lakhs. Due to the said illegal mining, water resources were ruined and cultivation area were also ruined and now, there is no water resources for the human beings and animals and they also stored the granites blocks in the Periyasurianendhal kanmai Government poramnoke land comprised in S.F.No.1/1 and also encroached the entire kanmai. They dug bore well in the Government promboke land in S.F.No.67/1 and damaged the Government poramboke land. 13/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019
17.The learned senior counsels appearing for the respective petitioners submitted that the quarry lease was granted from 08.04.1995 to 07.04.2004. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner/A1 filed renewal application on 08.04.2003 to the Government of Tamil Nadu and it is pending. Therefore, the 1st petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.No.8044 of 2004 and on the interim direction of this Court, quarrying operation was continued till 16.10.2009 and this Court passed final order by order dated 13.08.2008 and permitted the 1st petitioner to continue quarry operation till the application for renewal is considered and disposed of. On 16.10.2009, A2 sold out the entire leasehold area to G.Gobalakrishnan, who arrayed as A7, in turn, A7 sold out the entire property in favour A8 owned by A9. Therefore, they did not commit any offence as alleged by prosecution. On perusal of documents revealed that the 1st accused was granted quarry lease permission from 08.04.1994 to 07.04.2004. Thereafter, on the direction of his Court, they continued their quarry operation till the selling of entire land.
18.In the sale deed dated 06.10.2009, the 1st accused also transferred the right of quarry in the said land in favour of A7. The 14/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 letter dated 14.10.209 written by A1 to the District Collector, Madurai District, it has been stated as follows:
“,e;epiyapy;> vq;fspd; epWtj;jpw;F ghj;jpag;gl;l nkny fz;Ls;s ,lj;ij ehq;fs; kJiu-20 nf.nf.efh; nkw;F 4tJ Fwf;Fj;bjU vz;.
588 vd;w Kfthpapy; trpj;J tUk; S.fhe;jp mth;fs; Fkhuuh;
G.nfhghyfpU\;zd; mth;fSf;F fle;j 6.10.2009 njjpad;W jhkug;gl;o rhh;gjptfj;jpy; nknyf;fz;Ls;s Fthhpapd; midj;J tpjkhd chpikfs; cs;gl Rj;jf; fpiuakhff; bfhLj;Js;nshk;.”.
19.The quarrying permission issued only to the petitioner/A1 and no permission was granted to subsequent purchasers. While transferring the leasehold land to other persons, the petitioner did not follow the rules contemplated under the rules and conditions made in Section 37 of Minor Mineral Concessions Rules.
20.According to the case of the prosecution, in the year 2007, after two days from pongal, all the accused persons conspired together and went to the land comprised in S.No.63/9 and trespassed into the Periyasurianenthal kanmoi and quarried the said land by using explosive substances.
15/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019
21.The learned senior counsels submitted that on the date of occurrence, the 2nd accused was not present in the occurrence place since, from 13.01.2007 to 25.01.2007, the 2nd petitioner/2nd accused went to USA to participate in MBNA Fair 2007 (Monuments Builders of North America) at Cincinati City, Ohio State in USA. The 5th accused was also not present in the place of occurrence, since, from 11.05.2006 to 18.06.2007 he was continuously away from India as he studied MBA course in Columbia University, New York, USA. However, the plea of alibi cannot be considered at this stage that too under 482 of Cr.P.C. by this Court. All the documents produced by the petitioners to be tested during the trial before the trial Court. Further, the contradiction in the statements recorded from the list of witnesses cannot be considered in the quash petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India repeatedly held that the contradictions between the statement of witnesses can be considered only during the trial before the trial Court.
22.It is 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 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-
16/24
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 "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 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 17/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 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.
6..........
7..........
8.........
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 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 18/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."
23.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.19/24
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019
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.
Perusal of the above said two decision reveals that the said case are squarely applicable to the facts of the present.
24.Admittedly, the lease period was expired on 07.04.2004 granted in favour of the 1st accused. Thereafter, the 1st accused made a renewal application on 08.04.2003 and it is pending. Therefore, the 1st accused approached this Court in W.P.No.8044 of 2004 and on the direction of this Court, they continued quarrying operation till the selling of the land in favour of A7. Further, they also paid seignorage fees till 2011 in the name of A1. Thereafter, they also paid requisite fees to transport the granites from S.Nos.63 and 64 in the year 2010 and though it was paid for transporting granites, the involvement of the petitioner in the quarrying operation is there even after selling the land to A7 to A9. Since the offences committed by the petitioners are very serious in nature and there are incriminating evidence to attract the charges as charged by the 20/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 prosecution as against the petitioners and the petitoiners along with others illegally quarried in the Government parai poramboke in S.F.No.66 and Periyasuriyanenthal kanmoi in S.F.No.1/1 and committed theft of granite stones by using explosives substances and damaged the Government kanmoi and parai poramboke to the tune of 695.56 crores. Moreover, all the points raised by the petitioners are mixed question of facts and they cannot be considered here under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
25.Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 - 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 21/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 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.” The above judgment is squarely application to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
26.In view of the above discussions, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. It is seen that the matter s pending for committal proceedings in P.R.C.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. Therefore, the leared Judicial Magistrate, Melur is directed to complete the committal proceedings, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22.10.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Arul 22/24 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, Idayapatti Village, Madurai North Taluk.23/24
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6125 & 8762 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Arul Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) Nos.6125 and 8762 of 2019 22.10.2019 24/24 http://www.judis.nic.in