Dismissed

Pandivenkatesan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Sept 2019CRL OP(MD)/9654/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that since the trial had commenced and prima facie cases were made out, quashing was not in order. The petition was dismissed with a six-month deadline for trial completion (Image reconstruction result).

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed; trial court directed to complete trial within six months.

Pandivenkatesan Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRL.O.P(MD)No.9654 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.09.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P(MD)No.9654 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6154 of 2019

¶3

Pandivenkatesan

¶4

... Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶5

¶6

1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District. (In Crime No.1 of 2015) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶7

2.Elango ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pertaining to charge sheet in C.C.No.96 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Sivagangai and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeyaprakash For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.96 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai as against the petitioner.

¶12

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case with oblique motive. He further submitted that the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2015 against the petitioner and others under Sections 408, 409, 420, 406, 120(b), 468 and 471 of IPC., and subsequently charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.96 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

¶13

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges framed against the petitioner have to be gone into a full-fledged trial. Further, he would submit that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

1/4

¶15

CRL.O.P(MD)No.9654 of 2019

¶16

the trial has also been commenced and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶17

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

¶18

5.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:-

¶19

"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.

¶20

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.

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

¶25

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

¶26

2/4

¶27

CRL.O.P(MD)No.9654 of 2019

¶28

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 offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."

¶29

6.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:-

¶30

" 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

7.In view of the above citations, the criminal proceedings as against the petitoner cannot be quashed at its threshold and it has to be gone in to by full fledged trial. Further, in this case, trial has also been commenced. Therefore, the charges cannot be quashed at this stage and this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

CRL.O.P(MD)No.9654 of 2019

¶36

8.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Sivagangai, is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶41

¶42

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.C.JEYAPRAKASH, Advocate ( SR-88933[F] dated 24/09/2019 ) CRL.O.P(MD)No.9654 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6154 of 2019 23.09.2019

¶43

VSD

¶44

MK (04.10.2019) 4P 5C

¶45

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

¶46

4/4

Pandivenkatesan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandivenkatesan v. The Inspector of Police

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

R.karthiga devi Vs The Superintendent of police

P.Dhandapani Vs The Inspector of Police

The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs a.Murugan

Muthumari Vs The inspector of police

Parvathi, W/o.Late. Sekar, Vs The District Collector

Mahendran Vs the Inspector of Police