← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12061/2019dismissed

Manikandan @ Manivel v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-09-12Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.7573 and 7575 of 2019 Manikandan @ Manivel ... Petitioner/Accused No.9 Vs 1.State rep. by Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul.

... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.M.Murugesan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.9 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in respect of the petitioner/A9.

For Petitioner : Mr.Vinod Sathya Lazar For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, G.A.(Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.9 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in respect of the petitioner/A9. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent persons and he has been falsely implicated in the case with oblique motive and the petitioner was not even present in the place of occurrence at that time and the identity of this petitioner was mistaken and he is not the person found in the charge sheet and his name has not been mentioned in the first information report and he has no nexus with the alleged 1/4

offence. He further submit that petitioner was wrongly served summons and in the charge sheet also, his father name has been mentioned as Raman, whereas, his father's name is Ramasamy and accordingly, he prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings. 3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) submitted that there are materials available to proceed with the trial as against the petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charge framed against the petitioner has to be gone into a full-fledged trial and he further admitted that the petitioner is the real accused and his father name has been wrongly mentioned in the final report and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

5.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:- "4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not.

5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that 2/4

the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.

......................

9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."

6.It is also 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.

3/4

7.In view of the above citations, the criminal proceedings as against the petitoner cannot be quashed at its threshold and it has to be gone in to by full fledged trial. Therefore, the charge cannot be quashed at this stage and this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.

8.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

9.Since the case is of the year 2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul is directed to complete the trial and pass orders thereon, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Arul To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Order made in 12.09.2019 JMN(03.10.2019) 4P : 4C 4/4