The court's decision emphasized that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C should not be used to inquire into the validity of the evidence, but only to consider whether the allegations in the complaint form the basis for the ingredients of the alleged offences.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in CC.No.1365 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and to quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.1365 of 2020 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 323 & 420 of IPC, in Crime No.1892 of 2017, as against this petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had earlier married the petitioner and the complainant suspected the petitioner of having illicit relationship with another woman. While being so, she lodged complaint on 28.04.2017 alleging that the petitioner and other accused persons trespassed the house of the complainant on 27.04.2017 at around 8.00 p.m. and assaulted the complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a family dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. They also filed petition for divorce by mutual consent in Crl.OP.No.2149 of 2017.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

6. It is seen that after filing divorce petition, the occurrence took place and the said petition ended in vain. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in CC.No.1365 of 2020 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. It is also seen that there are specific allegations to attract offence under Sections 147, 323 & 420 of IPC as against the petitioner. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to be considered, since there are specific materials to attract offence under Sections 147, 323 & 420 of IPC as against the petitioner. 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., wherein it is held 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, 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 putforth by the respondent, led u