Dismissed

Ranganathan v. the State Represented by

Madras HC18 Aug 2020CRL OP/12487/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Madras HC disposed of a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a complaint. Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to appreciate evidence or witness statements at this stage. The petition was dismissed and the trial directed to proceed in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; quashing of prosecution refused.

Ranganathan Vs the State Represented by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.12487 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4920 & 4921 of 2020

¶6

Ranganathan
S/o Ramasamy
No.2, Valliyammal Pudhur
Nambiyur Post
Gobichettipalayam Taluk
Erode District. ... Petitioner
.Vs.
1. State Rep by its
The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Thiruvannamalai.
(Crime No.2/2017)
2. Mani
S/o Arumugam
Mel Chengam Village
Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.6
of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court - I,
Thiruvannamalai, and to quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents: Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.6 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court - I, Thiruvannamalai, and to quash the same.

¶10

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the

¶11

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

¶12

first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 6 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court - I, Thiruvannamalai. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.

¶14

Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

¶15

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:-

¶16

" 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.

¶17

6. 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

¶18

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

¶19

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 appellantC.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

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.”

¶21

7. 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...................."

¶22

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

¶23

The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶24

In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2018 in Crime No.2 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court - I, Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Further, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, 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. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶25

Accordingly, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
also closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. Judicial Magistrate Court - I
Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Inspector of Police
District Crime Branch
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, Sr.No.27233
Crl.O.P.No.12487 of 2020
vg ii (co)
rr ii (17/09/2020)

¶26

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

Ranganathan v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranganathan v. the State Represented by

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

Nirmala Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police

Devan Vs State Rep by

Revathy Vs The Inspector of Police

J.Suguna Vs P.Senthilnathan

Bank of Maharashtra Vs the Inspector Ofpolice

Kapilvirej Vs the State Represented by