Madras High Court
S.Thilagaraj vs The State Represented By on 12 April, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.13911 of 2021
&
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7228 & 7231 of 2021
S.Thilagaraj ... Petitioner/
Sole Accused
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
VelliChandai Police Station,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent/
Complainant
2. Krishnammal ... Defacto Complainant/
Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for
the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 144 of 2010 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District in Crime No. 33
of 2010 on the file of the fisrt respondent Police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.1
Mr.R.Murugan for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 144 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, namely, Krishnammal lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police stating that on 11.04.2010, at about 04.00 p.m., when she feels itching on her neck, she unwraped her 11 ¼ Sovereign Thali chain and put it on the floor after the she applied ointment and slept. At that time, Thilagaraj, his wife and daughter came to her house for inviting her to their house warming function. After they left the defacto complainant's house, she noticed that the Thali chain was missing. The entire jewel stolen is worth about Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand only). Hence she lodged the present complainant.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 33 of 2010 as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 144 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and P.W.1 to 4 have been examined in this case.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
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., 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 3/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
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.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021
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:
"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...................."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021 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 C.C.No. 144 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District. 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 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
12.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021 To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District.
2. Inspector of Police, VelliChandai Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13911 of 2021 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mga Crl.O.P(MD)No.13911 of 2021 & Crl.MP(MD)Nos.7228 & 7231 of 2021 12.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8