High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3663 and 3664 of 20251. Sheir @ Kadhar Sherif2. Sikkandar @ SikkandarThajudeen ... PetitionersVsState Rep. by,The Inspector of Police,K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,Chennai. ... RespondentCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for records in C.C.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Additional Mahila Court at Magistrate Level, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.For Petitioners: Mr.A.S.Aswin PrasannaFor Respondent: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)O R D E R1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025This Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court at Magistrate Level, Egmore, Chennai.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.02.2020, around 01:00 p.m., the Inspector of Police, K3, Aminjikarai Police Station, viz., A. Naseema, was interrogating the second accused based on a complaint given by one Begum regarding a theft of Rs.50,000/- from her house. When the first accused, belonging to Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi, entered into the Police Station and gave threats to the Police Official, he took away the second accused from the enquiry room. Further, it is alleged that the petitioners, while trying to exit the Police Station, were restrained by the Inspector of Police and reacting to that, the first petitioner twisted Naseema's right hand and the second petitioner struck her on the face with bare hands. Subsequently, both the accused gave threats to the Police Officials. After hearing shouting and other noise from the Police Station, the Police Officials and the public, who were waiting outside the law and order chamber, assisted the prosecution and caught hold of the petitioners.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 20252.1. After the above incident, a case was registered pursuant to the complaint preferred by the said A. Naseema in the respondent Police in Crime No. 09 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 341 and 506(2) of IPC. Thereafter, on 22.07.2020, an alteration report was filed and charges were altered to Sections 341, 332, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 2000. Further, the FIR in Crime No. 09 of 2020, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Aminjikarai, was transferred to K4, Anna Nagar Police Station on 22.07.2020 and was renumbered as Crime No. 728 of 2020. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed on 20.12.2020 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore Chennai and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 6 of 2021.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were called for an enquiry in pursuance of another case and when the petitioners did not cooperate with the enquiry, a false case was foisted against the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any basis, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 728 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 332, 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025353, and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 4 of TNPWH Act against the first petitioner, and for the offences under Sections 294(b), 332, 353, and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 4 of TNPWH Act against the second petitioner. The same has been taken cognizance of in C.C. No.6 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.6. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioners had already filed a petition to discharge before the Trial Court and the same was dismissed. Further, it is seen that on the complaint lodged by the said A.Naseema, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.728 of 2020 for 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 332, 353 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPWH Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.6 of 2021 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition. 7. 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.8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025reported 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.9. 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., 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025during trial. 10. 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. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.06 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court at Magistrate Level, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. 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. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 202527.02.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/NokvTo1. The Additional Mahila Court at Magistrate Level, Egmore, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.5658 of 202527.02.20259/9

Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3663 and 3664 of 20251. Sheir @ Kadhar Sherif2. Sikkandar @ SikkandarThajudeen ... PetitionersVsState Rep. by,The Inspector of Police,K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,Chennai. ... RespondentCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for records in C.C.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Additional Mahila Court at Magistrate Level, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.For Petitioners: Mr.A.S.Aswin PrasannaFor Respondent: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)O R D E R1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025This Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court at Magistrate Level, Egmore, Chennai.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.02.2020, around 01:00 p.m., the Inspector of Police, K3, Aminjikarai Police Station, viz., A. Naseema, was interrogating the second accused based on a complaint given by one Begum regarding a theft of Rs.50,000/- from her house. When the first accused, belonging to Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi, entered into the Police Station and gave threats to the Police Official, he took away the second accused from the enquiry room. Further, it is alleged that the petitioners, while trying to exit the Police Station, were restrained by the Inspector of Police and reacting to that, the first petitioner twisted Naseema's right hand and the second petitioner struck her on the face with bare hands. Subsequently, both the accused gave threats to the Police Officials. After hearing shouting and other noise from the Police Station, the Police Officials and the public, who were waiting outside the law and order chamber, assisted the prosecution and caught hold of the petitioners.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 20252.1. After the above incident, a case was registered pursuant to the complaint preferred by the said A. Naseema in the respondent Police in Crime No. 09 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 341 and 506(2) of IPC. Thereafter, on 22.07.2020, an alteration report was filed and charges were altered to Sections 341, 332, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 2000. Further, the FIR in Crime No. 09 of 2020, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Aminjikarai, was transferred to K4, Anna Nagar Police Station on 22.07.2020 and was renumbered as Crime No. 728 of 2020. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed on 20.12.2020 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore Chennai and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 6 of 2021.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were called for an enquiry in pursuance of another case and when the petitioners did not cooperate with the enquiry, a false case was foisted against the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any basis, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 728 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 332, 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025353, and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 4 of TNPWH Act against the first petitioner, and for the offences under Sections 294(b), 332, 353, and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 4 of TNPWH Act against the second petitioner. The same has been taken cognizance of in C.C. No.6 of 2021 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.6. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioners had already filed a petition to discharge before the Trial Court and the same was dismissed. Further, it is seen that on the complaint lodged by the said A.Naseema, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.728 of 2020 for 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 332, 353 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPWH Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.6 of 2021 by the trial Court and it is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition. 7. 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.8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025reported 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.9. 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., 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025during trial. 10. 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. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.06 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court at Magistrate Level, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. 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. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 202527.02.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/NokvTo1. The Additional Mahila Court at Magistrate Level, Egmore, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5658 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.5658 of 202527.02.20259/9