Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10024/2018dismissed

T. Richard Kingsley Kumar v. E. Praisy Gift

2019-11-12Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10024 of 2018 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.11.2019 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10024 of 2018 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4485 & 4486 of 2018 T.Richard Kingsley Kumar ... Petitioner/Respondent Vs.

1.E.Praisy Gift 2.Minor.R.Daniel Bennial Richard (minor second respondent represented by his mother first respondent) ... Respondents/Petitioners Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to M.C.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court, Padmanabhapuram and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of law.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thampi

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court, Padmanabhapuram.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent filed a petition as against the petitioner in M.C.No.19 of 2017. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

3. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10024 of 2018 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 application 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. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court, Padmanabhapuram. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P(MD) No.4485 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.4486 of 2018 are closed. However, 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.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Ad-II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Court,Padmanabhapuram. 2 The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Dss/sma/26/11/19/2p/3c Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10024 of 2018and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4485 & 4486 of 2018 11.11.2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2