High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAYANCRL.O.P.NO.4268 OF 2025 &Crl.M.P.Nos.2683 and 2681 of 20251.S. Vadivel2.R. Saravanan .. Petitionervs1. The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Namakkal District. (Crime No.197 of 2024)2. Boopathi .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.169 of 2024 pending trial on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti, in so far as the petitioners/accused No. 5 & 6 are concerned.For Petitioners : Mr. K. Gandhi KumarFor Respondent : Mr.A. Gopinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.169 of 2024 pending trial on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti, in so far as the petitioners/accused No. 5 & 6 are concerned.2. The case of the prosecution is that on account of previous enmity between the defacto complainant and A1 in respect of removal of encroachments made by the A1, the petitioners, who are father- in- law and brother- in- law of A1-Vishwanathan, along with other accused gathered unlawfully infront of the house of defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and thereafter, on the instigation of petitioners, A2 attacked the defacto complainant, his wife, his brother and his brother's son with iron pipe on their head, stomach and shoulder and inflicted injuries on them. Hence, on investigation, a case was registered in Cr.No.309 of 2023 against the accused for the offence under sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2), 307 of IPC and under section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2012. On filing final report, cognizance of the offence was taken in S.C.No.169 of 2024 before the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Sub Court, Panruti. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A5 and A6 in S.C.No.169 of 2024 and in fact, they are not named in FIR, only after filing FIR, they were implicated as accused. There are absolutely no specific overt act as against the petitioners. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have instigated the other accused persons to commit the offence. He further submitted that except their relationship with A1, there is absolutely no material to connect them with the offence. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the charge sheet filed in SC.No.169 of 2024. 4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. Perusal of records would reveal that on the basis of the statements recorded from the victims, there are specific allegations as against the petitioners herein to attract the offence under sections 294(b), 324, 506(2), 307, 147, 148 IPC and section 4 of TNPHW Act.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.That apart, 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 could 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. 7.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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8.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 the 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. 9.Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. 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. 10.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.169 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners 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. 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. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 18.02.2025msrIndex:yes/noInternet:yes/nospeaking order/non-speaking order.To1. The Sub Court, Panruti.2. The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Namakkal District. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.msrCRL.O.P.NO.4268 OF 2025 &Crl.M.P.Nos.2683 and 2681 of 202518.02.2025 8/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAYANCRL.O.P.NO.4268 OF 2025 &Crl.M.P.Nos.2683 and 2681 of 20251.S. Vadivel2.R. Saravanan .. Petitionervs1. The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Namakkal District. (Crime No.197 of 2024)2. Boopathi .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.169 of 2024 pending trial on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti, in so far as the petitioners/accused No. 5 & 6 are concerned.For Petitioners : Mr. K. Gandhi KumarFor Respondent : Mr.A. Gopinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the charge sheet filed in S.C.No.169 of 2024 pending trial on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti, in so far as the petitioners/accused No. 5 & 6 are concerned.2. The case of the prosecution is that on account of previous enmity between the defacto complainant and A1 in respect of removal of encroachments made by the A1, the petitioners, who are father- in- law and brother- in- law of A1-Vishwanathan, along with other accused gathered unlawfully infront of the house of defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and thereafter, on the instigation of petitioners, A2 attacked the defacto complainant, his wife, his brother and his brother's son with iron pipe on their head, stomach and shoulder and inflicted injuries on them. Hence, on investigation, a case was registered in Cr.No.309 of 2023 against the accused for the offence under sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2), 307 of IPC and under section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2012. On filing final report, cognizance of the offence was taken in S.C.No.169 of 2024 before the 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Sub Court, Panruti. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A5 and A6 in S.C.No.169 of 2024 and in fact, they are not named in FIR, only after filing FIR, they were implicated as accused. There are absolutely no specific overt act as against the petitioners. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have instigated the other accused persons to commit the offence. He further submitted that except their relationship with A1, there is absolutely no material to connect them with the offence. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the charge sheet filed in SC.No.169 of 2024. 4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. Perusal of records would reveal that on the basis of the statements recorded from the victims, there are specific allegations as against the petitioners herein to attract the offence under sections 294(b), 324, 506(2), 307, 147, 148 IPC and section 4 of TNPHW Act.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.That apart, 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 could 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. 7.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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8.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 the 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. 9.Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. 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. 10.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.169 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners 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. 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. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 18.02.2025msrIndex:yes/noInternet:yes/nospeaking order/non-speaking order.To1. The Sub Court, Panruti.2. The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Namakkal District. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.msrCRL.O.P.NO.4268 OF 2025 &Crl.M.P.Nos.2683 and 2681 of 202518.02.2025 8/8