High Courts cannot interfere at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 when the allegations support the offences described.

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.349 of 2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 75(1)(c) of the City Police Act. 1888, as against this petitioner.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.07.2017 at about 6 p.m., when the defacto complainant/second respondent was standing in front of his office, the petitioner came and questioned whereabout his son and abused him with filthy languages. The petitioner also pulled down the defacto complainant and kicked in his stomach and in his back. When the defacto complainant raised huge cry, P.W.4 came and rescue him. However the petitioner escaped from the spot. Thereafter, P.W.4 took the defacto complainant to the hospital for treatment and lodged complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR and after completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.349 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 75(1)(c) of the City Police Act, 1888. To quash the said proceeding, the petitioner filed the present petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a money dispute between the second respondent and the petitioner. Now it has been given criminal colour as if the said alleged occurrence was taken place. Even according to the Doctor, the injury sustained by the second respondent is simple in nature. Therefore, the offence under Section 323 of IPC, does not attract as against the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that after completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 75(1)(c) of the City Police Act, 1888. He further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only during the trial.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. On the perusal of the records, it is revealed that the second respondent is aged about 72 years at the time of alleged occurrence. He specifically stated that accused assaulted the second respondent by his hands and legs. He also scolded him with filthy language and abused him. Though the Doctor opined that the injury sustained by the second respondent is simple in nature, the offence under Section 323 of IPC is clearly attracted as against the petitioner.

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. Fruther, 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 da