##PAGE1##

CRL OP No. 29535 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.No. 29535 of 2022 and

Crl.M.P.No.18087 of 2022

1. Rajkumar Inspector of Police,

Senthurai, Ariyalur District.

2. Manavalan Sub Inspector of Police,

Senthurai, Ariyalur District

..Petitioners Vs

Fathima Pevi ..Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to CC No.43 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Senthurai and

quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan

For Respondent: P.Pugalenthi

__________

Page1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 01:38:14 pm )

CRL OP No. 29535 of 2022

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.43 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Senthurai.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

3. The respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners and

others alleging that there is a civil dispute over the property and that one Muthaliff and his family assaulted her husband and sons with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries. Due to which, they were admitted in Government Hospital, Ariyalur, and were subsequently referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, for further treatment. However, the petitioners, who are police officials, failed to record the statements of the injured persons and obtained bribe from the said Muthaliff and his family for not registering the FIR. Since, no action was taken on the her complaint, the respondent forwarded the same to the higher police authorities and thereafter filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial

Magistrate, Sendurai.

4. On receipt of the complaint, the Trial Court had taken cognizance,

finding that there are specific allegations made out a prima facie to take

__________

Page2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 01:38:14 pm )

CRL OP No. 29535 of 2022

cognizance as against all the accused persons. Though the petitioners are arrayed as A6 and A7, viz., the Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector Police, there are specific allegations as against them to attract the offences alleged. Further, the alleged acts cannot be said to have been committed in the discharge of their official duties. Hence, this Court finds no grounds to quash

the proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2022.

5. In this regard, 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..

6. 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 dated 17.10.2019) held that the

__________

Page3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 01:38:14 pm )

CRL OP No. 29535 of 2022

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.