Dismissed

Arun v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/176/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PETITIONER sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Cr.P.C. 482. HIGH COURT HELD that trial commencing precludes quashing. Court cited Supreme Court precedents prohibiting deep factual examination at stage 482 and dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed. Trial to proceed. Petitioner to be present for specific stages of trial including furnishing copies, framing charges and judgment.

Arun Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.176 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.176 of 2021 & Crl.M.P(MD)No.45 of 2021

¶7

Arun

¶8

... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Inspector of Police,

¶11

Veerapandi Police Station,

¶12

Theni District. (Crime No.503 of 2018) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Jensi Malathi ... Respondent/

¶14

Defacto Complainant

¶15

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.75 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi

¶17

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶18

for R.1

¶19

Mr.S.Sundara Pandian for R.2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.75 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent herein had given a complaint to the first respondent against the petitioner herein on 15.12.2018 by stating that she is working as Junior Bailiff at Sub Court, Uthamapalayam. Her husband died 17 years back. Behind her house, the petitioner is residing and frequently, he teased her. On 15.12.2018, at about 11.30 a.m, while she was out of her house, at that time, the petitioner teased her by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

1/4

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.176 of 2021

¶25

saying that he is ready to pay whatever amount demanded by her and she refused to oblige his demand and thereafter, he abused her in filthy language and gave him a life threat. Thereafter, the present complaint has been registered.

¶26

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 first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.503 of 2018 as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.75 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and P.W.1 to P.W.6 have been examined in this case. When the trial commences, this Court is not inclined to quash the entire proceedings.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent.

¶29

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:-

¶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 . 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:

¶33

2/4

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.176 of 2021

¶35

“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.

¶36

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.”

¶37

8. 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.

¶38

.............. 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...................."

¶39

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

¶40

3/4

¶41

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.176 of 2021

¶42

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

¶43

In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.75 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. 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 three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶44

Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

// True Copy //

mga

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶49

¶50