The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C should not be used to inquire into the validity of the evidence available when quashing a complaint or a charge.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in CC.No.21 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Kallakuruchi District and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records in CC.No.21 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Kallakuruchi District and to quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2016, the accused persons came with deadly weapons and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. They also attacked the defacto complainant with chappals and sticks. Hence, a case was registered as against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 355 and 506(2) of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant and other witnesses stated that the occurrence had taken place on 28.05.2016, even in the complaint and all the documents. However, in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, the second respondent stated that they have wrongly given the date of occurrence as 28.05.2016 instead of 28.04.2016. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. 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.

5. Though there are discrepancies in the statement as well as the complaint, it cannot be considered to quash the proceedings. The petitioners ought to have deposed the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court.

6. In this regard, 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.

7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of 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 cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”

8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows:

"9. It is too late