The High Court dismissed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court held that specific allegations and material evidence against the petitioner did not support quashing, and disputed facts must be tried on merits.
Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to complete trial 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.No.4116 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
S.Rajkumar
... Petitioner
Vs
... Respondents
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in pertaining to the C.C.No.2251 of 2017, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court - CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai, pertaining to the case in Crime No.275 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same, in respect of the petitioner/10th accused.
Page 1 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2251 of 2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court - CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai.
by the General Manager (Finance & Accounts) of VGN Group of Companies, Chennai, alleging that their company was involved in doing business of construction related activity, such as, promotion of Flats, Villas, etc., in the name of VGN Enterprises Private Limited and VGN Homes Private Limited and deployed employees in the sales and marketing department to look after entire business transaction in various levels from the Vice President to Sales Executives. While being so, the active persons were responsibile for collecting money from customers and they had not accounted a sum of Rs.2,16,77,791/-, which were collected from its customers and they had misappropriated the same. They also
Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
produced bogus receipts by using bogus company seal and forged the builders agreement using the signature of authorized signatory of the company. They also removed the pages of consideration part in the builders agreement and made a wrongful loss to the company. Hence, the complaint.
Page 3 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
against the petitioner is available. Further on 31.12.2013, one Pradeep Kumar had booked a Flat No.F2E in one of his project for a sale consideration of Rs.49,71,062/- and he was allowed to pay the payment in installments. The accused A1 to A3 and A10 was entrusted with the power of sale and collection. In the said complaint, A1 to A3 and A10 misused their power and joined together with a common intention and misappropriated the companies fund and collected a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 02.02.2013 and the accused A1 to A3 and A10 remitted cash of Rs. 2,40,640/- on 15.06.2013 and a cheque for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- on 15.06.2013 in the account of the said Pradeep Kumar, which was issued by one Raja, thereby misappropriated to the tune of Rs.1,09,360/- and shared the money illegally and falsified in the account. Therefore, the petitioner, being the 10th accused, appeared to have committed the offence under Sections 408, 420, 477A r/w. 34 of IPC and it is clearly attracted against him.
paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by cheque on 31.12.2012 and he had transferred a sum of Rs.28,71,066/- through RTGS on 08.01.2013,
Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
15.05.2013 & 24.05.2013 and also he had paid a sum o f Rs.10,00,000/by cash on 04.03.2013. Another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by cash on 24.05.2013. For these payments no receipt was issued by the petitioner and other accused persons. Therefore, there are material and specific evidence as placed by the petitioner in order to attract the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be considered before this Court that too under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
" 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
Page 5 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
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.
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 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, 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,
Page 6 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
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 p roposition 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)
Page 7 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
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.
13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the a ppellant 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 are mixed question of facts and it cannot
be considered in a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
hand. Since there are specific allegations and materials available on record as against the petitioner in order to attract offences under Sections 408, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of IPC, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2251 of 2017, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court - CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
03.10.2023.
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Lpp
Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
To
Crl.O.P.No.4116 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
03.10.2023
Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings against the 10th accused can be quashed despite specific allegations and material evidence against him.
Whether the High Court can examine disputed facts and evidence while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether specific allegations and materials constitute the alleged offences requiring trial on merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.Referred¶37
Crl.A.No.579 of 2019
Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna,Referred¶44
Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019
M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anrReferred¶53
Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Rajkumar
The StateRepresented by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch
Mr.K.Sivananthan
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
