B. Rajendran v. M. Abudahir
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.MP(MD).Nos.10458 and 10459 of 2016 B.Rajendran ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.
M.Abudahir
...Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in the case in C.C.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangudi and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Anandan For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangudi, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 406, 420 @ 120 (b), 420, 465, 468 of IPC, as against this petitioner.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant gave a sum of Rs.37,000/- to A2 for the purpose of registering the Government land in his favour. After receipt of money, A2 issued a patta in his name. While verifying the same, he knows that the said patta is belongs to another person. Hence, he demanded the petitioner and A2 to return his money. Though, he has made many request to them, they did not return his money. Hence he lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, and the same was forwarded to the District Crime Branch, Pudukottai and FIR was filed in Crime No.6 of 2004. After completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangudi and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.32 of 2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred this petition.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 406, 420 @ 120 (b), 420, 465, 468 1/4
of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 32 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangudi. Hence he prayed to quash the same. 4.Heard Mr.A.Anandan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
5. 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.
6.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 2/4
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."
7.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 petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2010 in Crime No.6 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangudi. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. 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.
3/4
9.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) dss 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. To 1.The Judicial Magistrate , Alangudi.
2.-Do-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Pudukkottai District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
and Crl.MP(MD).Nos.10458 and 10459 of 2016 28.10.2020 SR(CO) AP(06/11/2020) 4P 4C 4/4