T. Krishna Kumar @ T.K.Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4958 and 4959 of 2022 T.Krishna Kumar @ T.K.Kumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.
1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.399 of 2015) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Santhana Krishnan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and his sister, one, Saroja, are the owners of the property comprised in Survey R.S.No.42/3-4 situated at Boothakudi Village of Madurai District. The petitioner and the Document Writer one, Pandurangan are alleged to have created a lease deed, wherein, they signed the bogus signature of the defacto complainant's father, one, Rajagopalan on 23.02.1981. Wherein, the lease made over was created in favour of the petitioner's father on 03.07.1981. it is further submitted that the first respondent conducted the investigation in a haphazard manner and filed the impugned charge sheet and the same was taken on the file on 21.01.2021 in C.C.No.17 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. The impugned charge sheet is pending against the petitioner on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti. The second accused is reported dead.
1/4
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (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 on either sides. 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 appellant-C.B.I.
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.17 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti. 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.
10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 3/4
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.
2.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.4958 and 4959 of 2022 20.04.2022 RS(12.05.2022) 4P-4C 4/4