Civil O.P. seeking quashal of criminal prosecution for cheating was dismissed. The High Court refused to quash the complaint as it disclosed offences, holding merits of the defence must be tested at trial, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.89 of 2018 dismissed; petitioner directed to raise grounds at trial within six 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.6485 of 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.3579 of 2019
Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Coonoor. (Crime No.05/2017)
2. Rahamath ... Respondents
PRAYER: C riminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.89 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Jayasri Baskar For Respondent 1 : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondents 2 : No appearance
1/10
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.89 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC.
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
same in Cr.No.05 of 2017 for the offences under sections.417 and 420 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the 1st respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.
respondent gave her consent for sexual relationship. This petitioner also had knowledge about the 2nd respondent's previous marriage and also
3/10
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
known the fact that the 2nd respondent's husband left her. The 2nd respondent went to the field of this petitioner as cooli and worked as daily wages. This petitioner had sexual relationship with the 2nd respondent under the pretext of marriage. Admittedly, the husband of the 2nd respondent went to abroad and his whereabouts are not known for the past seven years. That apart, the 2nd respondent also paid sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the petitioner and thereby this petitioner cheated the 2nd respondent on the pretext of marriage. Hence, there are offences to attract under section 417 and 420 of IPC.
" 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
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
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.
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 . 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, 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
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
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 passed 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) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or
6/10
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
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...................."
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.11.2023
Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order gvn
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
To
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
gvn
Crl.O.P.No.6485 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.3579 of 2019
16.11.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the complaint discloses ingredients of offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC.
Whether the Special Public Prosecutor's submission that the 2nd respondent knowingly consented to sexual relations despite her prior marriage disentitles her to prosecution for cheating.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.Referred¶31
Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019
Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind KhannaReferred¶37
Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019
M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anrReferred¶45
Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 dated 02.12.2019
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Kumar
State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Rahamath
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
