High Court · 2025

Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 11.03.2025 Pronounced on : 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.6971 of 2024and Crl.MP.Nos.5093 and 5094 of 2024P.Praveen Kumar ... PetitionerVs.1. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai-600 001.2.Devendran ... Respondents.PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the case against the petitioner in C.C.No.1087 of 2021 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024 For Petitioner: Mr.P.Praveen Kumar (Party-in-Person)For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.R.Vivekanandan for R2 O R D E RThis petition has been filed challenging the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1087 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent has registered the FIR in Cr.No.1860 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 461, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) r/w 420 of IPC as against two accused persons. 3(i). The defacto complainant is the father-in-law of the petitioner's brother. Now, his daughter and his son-in-law are settled in London. His daughter has started a company called '' Universal Security Services '' in the year 2016. Thereafter, she could not able to continue the business, since she is settled in London. The second 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024respondent being the father, he was permitted to look after the entire business. The petitioner and his wife also joined in the day to day affairs of the company. 3(ii) However, from the year 2017, there was no accounts and no amount was transferred to his daughter's account. While it was questioned by the second respondent, the petitioner had threatened him with dire consequence and they also refused to come back to the company. Thereafter, both the accused had fabricated the documents as if where the company in the name '' Universal Security Service '' by transferring all the documents in their favour in the different address situated at Flat Nos.4 and 5 B1 Varnalaya Apartment, Padmavathy Nagar, Puzhal, Chennai-99. Thereby, they have looted huge money i.e., to the tune of Rs.32,00,000/- from the second respondent daughter's company. 4. After registration of FIR, the first respondent has completed the investigation and filed a final report and the same has been taken 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.1087 of 2021 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 5. The petitioner, who appeared party-in-person submits that the second respondent has no locus-standi to lodge any compliant that too without any power of attorney from his daughter who run the proprietorship '' Universal Security Service''. There is already a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and his brother by way of partition suit. That apart, the petitioner has also lodged complaint as against his brother and the same has been registered in Cr.No.736 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of IPC. Therefore, the entire proceedings is nothing but to wreck vengeance as against the petitioner, false case has been foisted against the petitioner.6. A perusal of documents and the statements recorded from the witnesses categorically revealed that there are materials to attract the offence as per the charges. The complaint lodged by the petitioner 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024is nothing, but counterblast to the other criminal proceedings pending against him. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submits that it is a case and counter. He further submits that there is already a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and his brother by way of partition suit. 7. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.1860 of 2020 for the offences under Sections294(b), 461, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) r/w 420 of IPC . After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1860 of 2020 by the trial Court and it is pending. As stated supra, there are specific materials are available to attract all the charges against the petitioner. 8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024Vs. 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.9.Further, 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.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 202410.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. 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 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024considered 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. 12.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1860 of 2020 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai 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 three 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. 28.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderVv8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024To1. The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai 2. The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai-600 001.3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Pre-delivery Order made inCrl.O.P.No.6971 of 2024 28.03.202510/10

Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 11.03.2025 Pronounced on : 28.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.6971 of 2024and Crl.MP.Nos.5093 and 5094 of 2024P.Praveen Kumar ... PetitionerVs.1. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai-600 001.2.Devendran ... Respondents.PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the case against the petitioner in C.C.No.1087 of 2021 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024 For Petitioner: Mr.P.Praveen Kumar (Party-in-Person)For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.R.Vivekanandan for R2 O R D E RThis petition has been filed challenging the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1087 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent has registered the FIR in Cr.No.1860 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 461, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) r/w 420 of IPC as against two accused persons. 3(i). The defacto complainant is the father-in-law of the petitioner's brother. Now, his daughter and his son-in-law are settled in London. His daughter has started a company called '' Universal Security Services '' in the year 2016. Thereafter, she could not able to continue the business, since she is settled in London. The second 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024respondent being the father, he was permitted to look after the entire business. The petitioner and his wife also joined in the day to day affairs of the company. 3(ii) However, from the year 2017, there was no accounts and no amount was transferred to his daughter's account. While it was questioned by the second respondent, the petitioner had threatened him with dire consequence and they also refused to come back to the company. Thereafter, both the accused had fabricated the documents as if where the company in the name '' Universal Security Service '' by transferring all the documents in their favour in the different address situated at Flat Nos.4 and 5 B1 Varnalaya Apartment, Padmavathy Nagar, Puzhal, Chennai-99. Thereby, they have looted huge money i.e., to the tune of Rs.32,00,000/- from the second respondent daughter's company. 4. After registration of FIR, the first respondent has completed the investigation and filed a final report and the same has been taken 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.1087 of 2021 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 5. The petitioner, who appeared party-in-person submits that the second respondent has no locus-standi to lodge any compliant that too without any power of attorney from his daughter who run the proprietorship '' Universal Security Service''. There is already a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and his brother by way of partition suit. That apart, the petitioner has also lodged complaint as against his brother and the same has been registered in Cr.No.736 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of IPC. Therefore, the entire proceedings is nothing but to wreck vengeance as against the petitioner, false case has been foisted against the petitioner.6. A perusal of documents and the statements recorded from the witnesses categorically revealed that there are materials to attract the offence as per the charges. The complaint lodged by the petitioner 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024is nothing, but counterblast to the other criminal proceedings pending against him. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submits that it is a case and counter. He further submits that there is already a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and his brother by way of partition suit. 7. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.1860 of 2020 for the offences under Sections294(b), 461, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) r/w 420 of IPC . After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1860 of 2020 by the trial Court and it is pending. As stated supra, there are specific materials are available to attract all the charges against the petitioner. 8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024Vs. 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.9.Further, 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.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 202410.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. 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 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024considered 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. 12.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1860 of 2020 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai 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 three 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. 28.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderVv8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024To1. The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai 2. The Inspector of Police, B-1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai-600 001.3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.6971 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Pre-delivery Order made inCrl.O.P.No.6971 of 2024 28.03.202510/10