Partly allowed

Palees v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2022CRL OP(MD)/4123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of trial proceedings in a cheating case. Having relied on Supreme Court precedents restricting the power to quash after evidence adduction, the Court held trial must proceed but granted dispensation from personal appearance for the aged petitioner while mandating completion of trial wit

What did the court decide?

Provisions in CC No. 50 of 2008 not quashed. Trial directed to complete within six months. Petitioner dispensed with personal appearance for this court.

Palees Vs The Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4123 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.03.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4123 of 2022

¶7

and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos. 2971and 2972 of 2022

¶8

Palees

¶9

...Petitioner/ Accused No.3

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Inspector of Police Economic Offences Wing Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

2.V.Daniel ...Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in CC No. 50 of 2008 on the file of the TNPID Court, Madurai District and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed seeking direction to quash the proceedings in CC No. 50 of 2008 on the file of the TNPID Court, Madurai District.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.06.2009 all the accused persons started running a financial establishment in the name and style of Jenit Bankers and collected deposits from 184 depositors and thereafter cheated them to the tune of Rs.54,13,196/Hence the case came to be registered.

¶19

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.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial has been commenced and 114 witnesses have already been examined and the case stands posted for examination of remaining witnesses.

¶21

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

¶22

1/4

¶23

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4123 of 2022

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides.

¶25

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:-

¶26

" 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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 Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:

¶29

“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.

¶30

20.In our view, the assessment made by the

¶31

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

¶32

2/4

¶33

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4123 of 2022

¶34

High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”

¶35

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:

¶36

"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.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

` 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in CC No. 50 of 2008 on the file of the TNPID Court, Madurai District . The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However , taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, 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.

¶40

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

¶41

3/4

¶42

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4123 of 2022

¶43

Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P(MD) No.2971 of 2022 stands dismissed and Crl.M.P(MD) No.2972 stands allowed. Sd/-

¶44

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶47

aav To 1 . The Judge, TNPID Court, Madurai District. 2. The Inspector of Police Economic Offences Wing Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4123 of 2022 03.03.2022

¶48

RD(16.03.2022) 4P 4C

¶49

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

¶50

4/4

Palees v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palees 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

Ganesan Vs The Inspector of Police

S.T.Umayal Vs The Inspector of Police

L.Sakkubai Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Police

T.Alagu Vs The District Superintendent of Police

Monisha Vs The Superintendent of Police

Kavi @ Sundara Kaviswarar Vs The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Sub Collector