The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on Supreme Court precedents, holding that the High Court should not have recorded findings or appreciated evidence at that stage.
Proceedings in C.C.No.299 of 2019 were not quashed; trial to be completed within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.945 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.945 of 2021 & Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.431 & 1869 of 2021
Accused 2 to 6
Vs.
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in C.C.No.299 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj for M/s.Veera Associates
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.1 Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan for R.2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.299 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
1/5
Crl.O.P(MD)No.945 of 2021
The case of the second respondent is that the second respondent and Kannan have married in the year 09.02.1997. At that time, the second respondent's father gave 16 Sovereigns of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) of house hold articles. After the marriage, Kannan have demanded a huge amount of money and 110 Sovereigns of gold. So, she left her matrimonial home. On 04.01.2018, at about 05.00 p.m, Kannan came to the house of the second respondent and threatened her to vacate the house and for that reason, the second respondent lodged a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District in Crl.M.P.No.1697 of 2018 and the case has been registered by the first respondent police on 29.03.2019 in Crime No.2 of 2019 and subsequently, charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District in C.C.No.299 of 2019.
" 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.
2/5
Crl.O.P(MD)No.945 of 2021
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.
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:
“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.
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.”
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
3/5
Crl.O.P(MD)No.945 of 2021
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...................."
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.
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
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.
4/5
Crl.O.P(MD)No.945 of 2021
To
+1 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-18209[F] dated 12/04/2022 ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.945 of 2021 & Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.431 & 1869 of 2021 08.04.2022
TP(CO) GC(27.04.2022) 5P 5C
5/5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the trial has commenced and witnesses have been examined.
Whether the High Court can record findings on disputed facts or appreciate witness evidence in Section 482 proceedings after cognizance.
Whether the allegations in the complaint form the basis of the offence alleged at the quashment stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.Referred¶28
Crl.A.No.579 of 2019
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind KhannaReferred¶34
Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019
M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anrReferred¶37
Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Panneer Selvam
Radar
Stalin
Kamaraj
Santhi
The Inspector of Police, AWPS Police Station, Kovilpatti
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
