Hemalatha v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.9652 and 9654 of 2019 Hemalatha ... Petitioner/A20 Vs 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Ramanathapuram 2.S.Pandiselvi ... Respondents/Complainants PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records relating to the impugned Final Report in PRC No.10 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,Ramanathapuram and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Raja Hussain For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga bharathi, G.A. (Crl. Side) for R1

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in PRC No.10 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,Ramanathapuram, having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 366(A),368,370,376 r/w.109,34 of IPC and Sections 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, as against this petitioner.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case with oblique motive. The respondent police conducted the investigation in a mechanical manner and filed the charge sheet as against the petitioner and hence, sought for quashment of the proceedings.

3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) submitted that there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the petitioner herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and the charges framed against the petitioner has to be gone into a full-fledged trial. 1/4

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

5.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.

6. 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. 2/4

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.

7.In view of the above citations, the criminal proceedings as against the petitoners cannot be quashed at its threshold and it has to be gone in to by full fledged trial. It is also seen that the matter is pending committal for several months. Therefore, the charges 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 petitioner to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Further the trial Court is directed to complete the committal proceedings in PRC No.10 of 2018 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except the dates on which, the trial Judge insisted the petitioner for her appearance. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Ramanathapuram 3/4

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

+1 CC to M/s.A.MOHAN, Advocate ( SR-97321[F] dated 11/11/2019 ) and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.9652 and 9654 of 2019 08.11.2019 KM/(29.11.2019) 4P 5C 4/4