V.Thirupathi v. State Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.07.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.10288 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5326 & 5327 of 2019 1.V.Thirupathi 2.T.Goundamani 3.T.Mani 4.T.Anbalagan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
2.Saravanan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.150 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Vijaya Baskar For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan APP for R1 No appearance for R2
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.150 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.234 of 2018, as against this petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log and other weapons and thereby
caused injury. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was admitted in hospital. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant's father are own brothers. Due to property dispute, a false complaint has been foisted against the petitioners. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.234 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 IPC and subsequently altered into under sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 150 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Heard Mr.Vijaya Baskar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
6. 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.
7. 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."
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 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 petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.150 of 2018 in Crime No.234 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The personal appearance of the petitioners are dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Munsif cum, Judicial Magitrate, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.10288 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5326 & 5327 of 2019 LN(SO) RV 26/08/2020