Court dismissed the petition seeking quashal of a private complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on Supreme Court precedents that prohibit appreciation of evidence or finding of inconsistencies at the quashal stage.
Proceedings in S.T.C.No.163 of 2019 dismissed; trial to be completed within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11751 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11751 of 2019 and Crl.MP(D)Nos.7371 & 7372 of 2019
1.Shanmugam Chettiyar
... Petitioners/Respondents
Vs.
Lakshmanan Chettiyar ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in S.T.C.No.163 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District, and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Thoothai Muniasamy For Respondent : Mr.K.SBalasundaram
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.163 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.
4.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:https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11751 of 2019
" 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.
5. 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 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.
2/3
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11751 of 2019
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (writs)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )
dss
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam,
Pudukkottai District.
+1 CC to Mr.K.BAALASUNDHARAM, Advocate ( SR-100786[F] dated 22/11/2019 )
+1 CC to Mr.ABUL KALAAM AZAD, Advocate ( SR-100495[F] dated 22/11/2019 )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11751 of 2019 and Crl.MP(D)Nos.7371 & 7372 of 2019 22.11.2019
MK (12.12.2019) 3P 4C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based solely on inferences from the complaint statement regarding inconsistency.
Whether the principles laid down in Devendra Prasad Singh and CBI v. Arvind Khanna apply to dismiss the petition seeking quashal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.Followed¶20
Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 in Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind KhannaApplied¶25
Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 - Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chettiyar and others
Lakshmanan Chettiyar
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
