Ramesh, S/O.Suruliappan, v. M. Xavier, S/O.Michael,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.317 and 318 of 2018 1.Ramesh 2.Manikandan 3.Kamalakannan 4.Ragupthi 5.Muthurasu 6.Karthick ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 Vs.
M.Xavier ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the impugned complaint of the respondent in S.C.No.65 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Uthamapalayam (formerly in PRC.No.41 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam), and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Appadurai For Respondent : Mr.D.Selvaraj
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.65 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam (formerly in PRC.No.41 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam), as against the petitioners.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A careful perusal of entire materials available on record, the charge sheet discloses a prima facie offence against the petitioners and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 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 1/3
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.
4. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 - 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."
The above judgment is 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.
5.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the trial is pending from the year 2013, 2/3
the learned Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, is directed to proceed with the trial and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court may be dispensed with.
7. Accepting the said submission, the personal appearance of the first petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. The first petitioner 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.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) vsd To
1. The Sub-Judge, Uthamapalayam.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam +1 CC to Mr.K.APPADURAI, Advocate ( SR-96977[F] dated 08/11/2019 ) and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.317 and 318 of 2018 07.11.2019 (1⁄2) MK (02.12.2019) 3P 4C 3/3