Dismissed

R.Arivalagan, v. K.Malathi

Madras HC30 Nov 2021CRL OP/19805/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a private complaint lodged under the Prevention of Atrocities Act and IPC Section 294 for alleged offences. The court held that a Magistrate can take cognizance of such offences and that evidentiary contradictions cannot be examined at this stage before the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.27 of 2017 cannot be quashed at this stage.

R.Arivalagan, Vs K.Malathi — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 30.11.2021

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19805 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.11964 & 11965 of 2017

¶6

R.Arivalagan ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

K.Malathi ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.27 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi and quash the same.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan

¶11

For Respondent : No appearance

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed to quash the charges in P.R.C.No.27 of 2017 on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi for the offences under Section 294 (b) of I.P.C. r/w Section 3 (i), (v), (x) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶14

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that originally the Police have filed F.I.R. and the same has been closed as a mistake of fact. Thereafter, private complaint filed by the defacto complainant has been taken cognizance by the Magistrate for the offences under Section 294 (b) of I.P.C. r/w Section 3 (i), (v), (x) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is his further contention that the learned Magistrate has no power to take cognizance of the offence. Further he contended that absolutely there is contradiction in the statement of the witnesses one in enquiry stage before the learned Magistrate and

¶15

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

¶16

in statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the police. Therefore, the private complaint has to be quashed.

¶17

This Court is of the view that such contention is not the ground to quash the entire proceedings. Merely because the Sessions Court namely Special Court has been given power to take cognizance directly that will not take away the right in entertaining the private complaint by the learned Magistrate. Even in the offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate can take cognizance and commit the case to the concerned Court. Therefore, on the above grounds proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶18

Similarly the contradictions in respect of the statements and evidence also cannot be gone into at this stage. It is a matter of evidence and it has to be tested before the Trial Court. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. It is well open to the petitioner to raise all his defence before the Trial Court.

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

vrc / kbs

¶24

¶25

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi.

¶26

+1cc to M/s.C.Veeraraghavan, Advocate, S.R.No.62727

¶27

+1cc to Mr.P.Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No.62696

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.19805 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.Nos.11964 & 11965 of 2017

¶29

PL(CO) SU(09/12/2021)

¶30

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

R.Arivalagan, v. K.Malathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Arivalagan, v. K.Malathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit George, 43 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Ramar, AGE-57 Vs the State Rep by

Muthurajan, M/a 38 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthilkumar (M/42) Vs State Rep. by

Murugan, 45 Yrs, Vs State by

S.BALASUBRAMANIAM,36 Yrs, Vs State Rep by