Panneer Selvam v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN & Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.431 & 1869 of 2021
1. Panneer Selvam
2. Radar
3. Stalin
4. Kamaraj
5. Santhi ... Petitioners 1 to 5/ Accused 2 to 6 Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police, AWPS Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.2 of 2019) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Arunaviji ... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in C.C.No.299 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj for M/s.Veera Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.1 Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan for R.2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.299 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Kannan is the husband of the second respondent and the petitioners 1 to 4 are brothers of the second respondent and the fifth petitioner is the sister of Kannan. 1/5
The case of the second respondent is that the second respondent and Kannan have married in the year 09.02.1997. At that time, the second respondent's father gave 16 Sovereigns of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) of house hold articles. After the marriage, Kannan have demanded a huge amount of money and 110 Sovereigns of gold. So, she left her matrimonial home. On 04.01.2018, at about 05.00 p.m, Kannan came to the house of the second respondent and threatened her to vacate the house and for that reason, the second respondent lodged a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District in Crl.M.P.No.1697 of 2018 and the case has been registered by the first respondent police on 29.03.2019 in Crime No.2 of 2019 and subsequently, charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District in C.C.No.299 of 2019.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2019 as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.299 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti,Thoothukudi District. Hence he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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.
2/5
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 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 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 3/5
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.299 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The personal appearance of the petitioners is 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 three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
10. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mga Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. 4/5
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
2. The Inspector of Police, AWPS Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-18209[F] dated 12/04/2022 ) & Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.431 & 1869 of 2021 08.04.2022 TP(CO) GC(27.04.2022) 5P 5C 5/5