Dismissed

K.Poongathai, v. D.Selvaraj

Madras HC6 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/6445/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash proceedings based on alleged inconsistencies in witness statements. Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments, the Court held that fact appreciation and inconsistency analysis belong in trial, not quashing. The petition was dismissed, trial was directed, and the petitioner's personal appearance was dispensed with except at c

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; trial directed to be completed within six months; personal appearance of petitioner dispensed with except for specific stages.

K.Poongathai, Vs D.Selvaraj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6445 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.11.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6445 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.4294 and 4295 of 2019

¶3

K.Poongothai ...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶4

Vs.

¶5

D.Selvaraj ...Respondent/Petitioner

¶6

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.72 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, and quash the same against the petitioner.

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.72 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, as against the petitioner.

¶9

Heard both sides.

¶10

A careful perusal of entire materials available on record, the charge sheet discloses a prima facie offence against the petitioner and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 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:-

¶11

" 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the trial while deciding the issues on the

¶12

1/3

¶13

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6445 of 2019

¶14

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.

¶15

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.''

¶16

4. 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:

¶17

“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.

¶18

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.”

¶19

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.

¶20

Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, is directed to proceed with the trial and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2/3

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6445 of 2019

¶25

Accepting the said submission, 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.

¶26

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

vsd

¶30

¶31

The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.

¶32

+1 CC to Mr.A.JOHN VINCENT, Advocate ( SR-96381[F] dated 06/11/2019 )

¶33

+1 CC to Mr.S.GOKULRAJ, Advocate ( SR-96517[F] dated 06/11/2019 )

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6445 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.4294 and 4295 of 2019 06.11.2019

¶35

VB(25.11.2019) 3P 4C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

3/3

K.Poongathai, v. D.Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Poongathai, v. D.Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vakkirakaliamman spinning Mills Vs L.S.Mills Limited

M.Sathiyanarayanan Vs The Commissioner of police

Jothi ramalingam Vs Thilagavathi alias Dorathi samathana thilagavathi

V.Nandakumar Vs Abraham Mathew

A.Sankareswari, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Muthupillai Vs the Inspector of Police