IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.07.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl. O.P. No. 4 of 2020 and Crl. M.P. No. 4 of 2020

1.Kolli Venkata Mohan Rao, No. 49-55-8, Vidyuth Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 533 024.

Andhra Pradesh.

2.Kolli Muralikrishna, No.49-44-8, Vidyuth Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 533 024. .. Petitioners vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.

(Crime No. 51/2004).

2.J.M.Patrica, D/o. Late Joseph Cristian Krishna Raj, New No.4, Old No.2, 9th Trust Cross Street, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai – 600 028. .. Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 151/2012 (Wrongly mentioned as C.C. No. 151/2001) pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur and quash the same as against the petitioners/A2 and A3.

For Petitioners : Mr. Rajamani for Mr. M.Prabhakar For Respondent-1 : Mr. S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 151/2012 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur and to quash the same as against the petitioners/A2 and A3.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 466, 468 r/w. 471 & 420 IPC, as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 151 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur.

Hence he prayed to quash the same.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.

4. Heard Mr. Rajamani learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. 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.

6. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India deals with 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