Suresh Kumar Herralal v. M/S.Larsen And Toubro Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No. 5643 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.3198 of 2020 Suresh Kumar Herralal Director of Hallmark living space Pvt. Ltd., Having Office at No.43, Old No.62/3, United Plaza, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
... Petitioner Vs.
M/s.Larsen and Tourbo Limited, Rep. By its Authorized Representative, Mr.V.K.Natarajan, Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, Chennai-600 017.
... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records relating to the complaint in in C.C.No.6573 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track-I, Metropolitan Magistrate-XIII, Allikullam, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondent : Mr.R.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh for Mr.Nithish Nataraj
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 6573 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track-I, Metropolitan Magistrate-XIII, Allikullam, Egmore, Chennai thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, as against this petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised so many grounds in the quash petition in respect of the 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner is being a director he did not involved in the day to day accounts of the company.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that already trial commenced C.C. of the year 2017 and the company side evidence already closed for proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At this stage the petitioner has been now filed to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Heard Mr.R.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh for Mr.Nithish Nataraj learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5.
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.
6.
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 appellantC.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."
7.
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.
8. Once the trial commenced before the trial Court quash petition cannot be entertained. In view of the above discussion,
this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6573 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track-I, Metropolitan Magistrate-XIII, Allikullam, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court is directed to complete the trail within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
9. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To
1. The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikullam, Egmore, Chennai.
(Now Metropolitan Magistrate Level-I Egmore, Chennai) +1cc to Mr.Chandra Mohan, Advocate in SR.27685 Crl.O.P.No. 5643 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.3198 of 2020 MG (CO) RV (14/09/2020)