Santhanam @ Santhanakrishnan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.2951 and 2952 of 2016 Santhanam @ Santhanakrishnan ... Petitioner /Accused No.2 Vs The State Rep. by

1. The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Madurai.

(Crime No.646 of 2008) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Parameshwari, Taluk Supply Officer, Melur, Madurai District. ...2nd Respondents/Defacto Complainant Prayer :

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar For R1 : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai.

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 first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.646 of 2008 for the offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955, as against the petitioner and taken cognizance for in C.C.No.38 of 2010. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that some of the witnesses have been examined in this case. 4.Heard Mr.T.Leninkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

1/3

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 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 2/3

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.

7.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai. Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P(MD)No.2952 of 2016 stands allowed and Crl.M.P(MD) No.2951 of 2016 is closed. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

8.Further, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. The 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.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Madurai.

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

19.11.2019 VB(06.12.2019) 3P 4C 3/3