Mani v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.07.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl. O.P. No. 2109 of 2020 and Crl. M.P. Nos.1317 & 1318 of 2020 1.Mani, S/o. Dhandavarayan, South Street, Sikkadu Village, Ulundurpet.

2.Irusammal, W/o. Dhandavarayan, South Street, Sikkadu Village, Ulundurpet.

.. Petitioners vs.

1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ulundurpet - 606 107. 2.Asha, W/o. Mani, Anna Nagar West, MGR Nagar, Cinnasalem Tk.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records relating to C.C. No.164 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Madhu Prakash For Respondent-1 : Mr. S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to C.C. No.164 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet and quash the same.

2.

It is seen from the records that the respondent police registered a complaint in Cr. No.23 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.

164 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet.

3.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced in C.C. No. 164 of 2019 and the prosecution have examined some of the witnesses. 4.

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:- " 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.

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.

5.

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."

6.

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 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 petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7.

In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.

The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. The personal appearance of the second petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bkn To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ulundurpet - 606 107. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.

Crl. O.P. No. 2109 of 2020 SS(CO) GMY(23/09/2020)