Dismissed¶61

S.Rajesh v. State by

Madras HC11 Mar 2025CRL RC/408/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (P. Velmurugan, J., 11.03.2025) in Crl.RC.No.408 of 2025 dismissed at admission stage a criminal revision against rejection of a Section 239 Cr.P.C. discharge application in a cheating case (Sections 406, 420 read with 120B IPC; Crime No.427 of 2018; C.C.No.6614 of 2023, CCB/CBCID Egmore). Key propositions: at discharge stage the court examines prosecution materials, not the accused's defence; no roving enquiry into veracity of materials; defence contentions are for trial. Useful search terms: discharge petition, Section 239 Cr.P.C., prima facie materials, roving enquiry, Criminal Revision, admission stage dismissal, liberty to raise defence at trial.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed at the admission stage; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; petitioner left at liberty to take all his defence before the trial Court.

S.Rajesh Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision dismissed at the admission stage; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; petitioner left at liberty to take all his defence before the trial Court.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30.09.2024 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the petitioner's discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (Crl.M.P.No.32539 of 2024 in C.C.No.6614 of 2023) is liable to be set aside, i.e., whether there are no prima facie materials against the petitioner so as to entitle him to discharge and spare him the ordeal of trial.

¶16

Court's answer

While deciding a discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the Court has to see the materials produced by the investigating agency and not the defence taken by the accused.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

At the discharge stage the Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry testing the veracity and validity of the materials produced by the investigating agency.

¶54

Key takeaways

On a reading of the complaint, charge sheet and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the witnesses have clearly spoken about the petitioner's involvement and the materials show prima facie allegations to proceed against him.ratio¶50
The grounds taken by the petitioner are nothing but defence, which can be decided only after trial and not at that stage; hence there are no grounds to interfere with the Magistrate's order.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision — discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. — prima facie materials — no roving enquiry at discharge stage. The petitioner (arrayed as A3 in C.C.No.6614 of 2023, arising out of Crime No.427 of 2018 for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC) challenged the order dated 30.09.2024 of the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Cheating Cases, Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, rejecting his discharge application filed pending trial after charges were framed and L.W.1 was examined as P.W.1. Holding (P. Velmurugan, J.): when deciding a Section 239 Cr.P.C. petition the Court must consider the materials produced by the investigating agency and not the accused's defence, and cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the veracity and validity of those materials; the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements clearly spoke of the petitioner's involvement and disclosed prima facie allegations against him. The grounds urged were characterised as matters of defence decidable only after trial. The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed at the admission stage itself, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and the petitioner was left at liberty to take all his defence before the trial Court. Decided 11.03.2025.

¶1

Crl.RC.No.408 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2025

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Crl.RC.No.408 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.4519 of 2025

S.Rajesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

State by Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Vepery, Chennai - 600 007 (XCr.No.427 of 2018) ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 rad with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.32539 of 2024 in C.C.No.6614 of 2023 dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases at Egmore, Chennai and set aside the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

1/8

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

Crl.RC.No.408 of 2025

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner to set aside

¶17

the order in Crl.M.P.No.32539 of 2024 in C.C.No.6614 of 2023 dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial

¶18

of CCB Cases (Relating To Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that based on the complaint given by one

¶20

Narendran, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.427 of 2018 against the petitioner and four others for the offence under Sections 406, 420

¶21

and 120B IPC and after investigation, laid charge sheet before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C. No.6614 of 2023. Pending trial, the petitioner filed a petition

¶22

in Crl.M.P.No.32539 of 2024 invoking Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking to

¶23

discharge the petitioner who has been arrayed as A3. The learned Magistrate 2/8

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.RC.No.408 of 2025 after enquiry, dismissed the petition by order dated 30.09.2024. Aggrieved by

¶26

the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

¶27

The contention of the petitioner is that there is no prima facie material

¶28

against the petitioner and even in the charge sheet, there is no incriminating materials against the petitioner. The prosecution materials itself does not disclose any prima facie materials to prosecute the petitioner. The learned Magistrate failed to consider the same and dismissed the petition. Since there is no sufficient materials against the petitioner, the petitioner need not face the

¶29

ordeal of trial. Therefore, the order of the Magistrate is liable to be set aside.

¶30

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent

¶31

police submitted that the charge sheet was filed in the year 2023 and the same

¶32

was taken on file in C.C.No.6614 of 2023 and after framing of charges, the witnesses were summoned and L.W.1 was already examined as P.W.1. Now the

¶33

case is posted for examination of L.W.2 and L.W.3. The petitioner has been

¶34

arrayed as A3. Even in the statement of the witness namely L.W.1, it is clearly 3/8

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.RC.No.408 of 2025 stated that the petitioner is also involved in this case. There is prima facie

¶37

available against the petitioner to proceed the case further. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and

¶38

there is no merits in this case.

¶39

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶40

Admittedly, the respondent police registered the case in Crime No.427

¶41

of 2018 dated 10.10.2018 against the petitioner and four others for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC in which, the petitioner was shown as

¶42

5th accused. After investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet against six persons for the offence under Sections 406, 420 read with 120B IPC in which, the petitioner has been shown as A3 and after taking the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.6614 of 2023, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore Chennai, framed the charges as against the

¶43

petitioner and others and commenced the trial. L.W.1 was already examined as 4/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Crl.RC.No.408 of 2025 P.W.1 and at that stage, the petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate by

¶46

invoking Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the above said case. The

¶47

learned Magistrate after enquiry, dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

¶48

Perused the complaint, charge sheet filed by the respondent police and

¶49

the statements recorded from the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The

¶50

witnesses have clearly spoken about the involvement of the petitioner.

¶51

It is settled proposition of law that at that time of deciding the petition

¶52

under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the Court has to see the materials produced by the

¶53

investigating agency and not the defense taken by the accused. Further, a reading of the materials shows prima facie allegations and materials to proceed

¶54

the case further against this petitioner also. At this stage, the Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry testing the veracity and validity of the materials

¶55

produced by the investigating agency.

¶56

5/8

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

Crl.RC.No.408 of 2025 9. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any grounds to

¶59

interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate. The grounds taken by the petitioner are nothing but defense which can be decided only after trial and not at this stage.

¶60