Dismissed

Rajaram v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/2190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on Supreme Court precedents that prohibit quashing cases after trial commencement or when evidence assessment is sought at the quashment stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; trial court directed to complete trial within six months; petitioner's personal appearance dispensed with.

Rajaram Vs The Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2190 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2190 of 2022 &

¶7

Crl.MP(MD)No.1609 of 2022

¶8

Rajaram

¶9

... Petitioner/1^st Accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.65 of 2021) ... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant 2. Jenkins ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No. 184 of 2021 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.1

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 184 of 2021 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a Gym Coach and he is working at petitioner's R.R.Power Gym at Nithiravilai. The petitioner / 1^st Accused person is the owner, who runs the Gym and he spoke very substandard words to the defacto complainant in front of the students. On 07.04.2021, the defacto complainant told the petitioner that he was leaving the job. Again on 08.04.2021, the defacto complainant called the petitioner and requested him that the defacto complainant will attend work. Thereafter, on the same day, when the defacto complainant went to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/5

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2190 of 2022

¶19

the Gym to see the petitioner, the petitioner's brother was there and had a wordy quarrel between them. The petitioner's brother punched the defacto complainant in the abdomen and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the present case came to be registered.

¶20

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2021 as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 184 of 2021 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

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:-

¶24

" 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind

¶27

2/5

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2190 of 2022

¶29

Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:

¶30

“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.

¶31

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.”

¶32

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:

¶33

"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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

3/5

¶37

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2190 of 2022

¶38

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

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.

¶40

In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.498 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. The petitioners is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, 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 six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶41

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

¶42

// True Copy //

¶43

mga

¶44

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.

¶45

¶46

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai.

¶47

2.The Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶48

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

¶49

4/5

¶50

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2190 of 2022

¶51