High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025andCrl.M.P.Nos.2087 and 2089 of 2025Srinivasan ... PetitionerVs1. The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal. Crime No. 483 of 2023.2. Sujatha ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records with respect of the charge sheet in SC.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr. R.NalliyappanFor Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025O R D E RThis Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in S.C. No. 104 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal.2. The petitioner is arrayed as the first accused in S.C.No.104 of 2024 and cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 304(2), 109, and 201 of IPC.3. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the complaint of the second respondent, on 16.09.2023, at about 9.00 p.m., the brother of the second respondent, viz., Sinoj, along with her son and daughters, went to a hotel belonging to the fourth accused in the above case and purchased Roti, Shawarma, Chicken Rice, Grill Chicken, and Mutton Gravy by parcel. The second respondent and four others ate those food items on the said night and thereafter, on 17.09.2023, the second respondent and others who had taken those foods suffered from vomiting and diarrhea. Thereafter, the second 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025respondent and others took medicine after getting a consultation with a doctor at Tirissur, Kerala, but despite that, the vomiting and diarrhea did not get cured. Hence, they were admitted to a private hospital on 17.09.2023, at about 6.45 p.m., taken treatment, and discharged. Later, on 18.09.2023, at about 8.20 a.m., the second respondent's daughter suffered from a breathing problem. Hence, she was taken to the hospital through an ambulance; however, she died in the Government Hospital at Namakkal.3.1. Subsequently, she made a complaint on 18.09.2023 before the first respondent Police against the owner of the said shop and the servants who cooked the food, and based on which the above case has been registered against them in Crime No.483 of 2023 under Sections 273, 328, and 304(2) of IPC. Thereafter, the first respondent Police implicated the petitioner as an accused, as if the petitioner had been vending a raw chicken stall in the name of Konar Chicken Kadai and from the said shop, the petitioner herein was alleged to have supplied old and allegedly spoiled chicken to the fourth accused Hotel and in the course of that, the second and third accused were alleged to have cooked the food and served it to the 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025customers of A4 Hotel. Hence, the complaint.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was implicated as the first accused only based on the confession statement given by the co-accused. There are no specific averments as against the petitioner to attract any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent 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.483 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 273, 328, and 304(2) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 20256. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.7. On a perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and also the charges, it is clear that there are specific averments and material available to attract the offences under Sections 273, 328, and 304(2) of IPC as against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.104 of 2024 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have 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 as against the accused. It 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.9. Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 11. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 202512. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal. 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. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 06.02.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/Nokv8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal.2. The Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.3121 of 202506.02.202510/10

Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025andCrl.M.P.Nos.2087 and 2089 of 2025Srinivasan ... PetitionerVs1. The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal. Crime No. 483 of 2023.2. Sujatha ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records with respect of the charge sheet in SC.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr. R.NalliyappanFor Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1)1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025O R D E RThis Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in S.C. No. 104 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal.2. The petitioner is arrayed as the first accused in S.C.No.104 of 2024 and cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 304(2), 109, and 201 of IPC.3. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the complaint of the second respondent, on 16.09.2023, at about 9.00 p.m., the brother of the second respondent, viz., Sinoj, along with her son and daughters, went to a hotel belonging to the fourth accused in the above case and purchased Roti, Shawarma, Chicken Rice, Grill Chicken, and Mutton Gravy by parcel. The second respondent and four others ate those food items on the said night and thereafter, on 17.09.2023, the second respondent and others who had taken those foods suffered from vomiting and diarrhea. Thereafter, the second 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025respondent and others took medicine after getting a consultation with a doctor at Tirissur, Kerala, but despite that, the vomiting and diarrhea did not get cured. Hence, they were admitted to a private hospital on 17.09.2023, at about 6.45 p.m., taken treatment, and discharged. Later, on 18.09.2023, at about 8.20 a.m., the second respondent's daughter suffered from a breathing problem. Hence, she was taken to the hospital through an ambulance; however, she died in the Government Hospital at Namakkal.3.1. Subsequently, she made a complaint on 18.09.2023 before the first respondent Police against the owner of the said shop and the servants who cooked the food, and based on which the above case has been registered against them in Crime No.483 of 2023 under Sections 273, 328, and 304(2) of IPC. Thereafter, the first respondent Police implicated the petitioner as an accused, as if the petitioner had been vending a raw chicken stall in the name of Konar Chicken Kadai and from the said shop, the petitioner herein was alleged to have supplied old and allegedly spoiled chicken to the fourth accused Hotel and in the course of that, the second and third accused were alleged to have cooked the food and served it to the 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025customers of A4 Hotel. Hence, the complaint.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was implicated as the first accused only based on the confession statement given by the co-accused. There are no specific averments as against the petitioner to attract any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent 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.483 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 273, 328, and 304(2) of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 20256. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.7. On a perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and also the charges, it is clear that there are specific averments and material available to attract the offences under Sections 273, 328, and 304(2) of IPC as against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.104 of 2024 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have 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 as against the accused. It 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.9. Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 11. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 202512. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal. 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. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 06.02.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/Nokv8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal.2. The Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Namakkal.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.3121 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.3121 of 202506.02.202510/10