Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7562 and 7564 of 2025 Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police CBCID, Villupuram ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., /528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.97 of 2024 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi and quash the charges against the petitioner herein (Accused No.4) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi as CC.No.97 of 2024 in regard to Crime No.2 of 2021, registered / filed by the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr. A.Vidyasagar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 ORDER This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 97 of 2024, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is A4, on the complaint lodged by the Judicial Officer, the respondent registered the F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 409, 120(b), 418, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC in Crime No.2 of 2021, as against the petitioner and that all the accused persons conspired together and misappropriated to the tune Rs.38,79,000/- from the court account by producing false and fabricated documents. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A4 in this case and no specific allegation has been made out as against the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case. 5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 6.On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has convinced the 1st accused to misappropriate to the tune of Rs.38,79,000/- by fabrication of documents, forgery and committed fraud on Court records. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 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./180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (any one) 8.Further, 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 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./528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.(any one) 9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 10.Further this Court cannot observe at this stage whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. 11.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 the proceedings in C.C.No.97of 2024, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kallakurichi. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17.04.2025 kas Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Kallakurichi 2.Inspector of Police CBCID, Villupuram 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, kas Crl.O.P.No.11402 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7562 and 7564 of 2025 17.04.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis