Madras High Court· 23 July 2026
How far may a High Court go into the facts on a petition to quash a charge sheet?
P.Selvaraja v. The State
Crl.O.P.No.28172 of 2024 · Crl.O.P.No.28172 of 2024
Coram: Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Answer
Not far. It has no jurisdiction to appreciate the statements of the witnesses, to record a finding that they are inconsistent, or to record findings on disputed facts — those are for the trial court on evidence. All the Court should see is whether the allegations form the basis of the ingredients that constitute the offence complained of, whether the preconditions for taking cognizance have been complied with, and whether the allegations, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence. Whether the initiation of proceedings was malicious is likewise to be considered at the conclusion of the trial.
Headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s.19(1)(b) — Constitution of India — Art.166 — Art.166(2) — Sanction to prosecute — Authentication — Quashing —
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s.19(1)(b) — Constitution of India — Art.166 — Sanction signed by the Secretary for the Governor —
Held: Neither the section nor Article 166 requires the Governor personally to sanction; executive action must be expressed in his name and authenticated as the Rules of Business prescribe, and a Secretary who so signs acts for the State Government. (¶24, ¶26, ¶27)
Constitution of India — Art.166(2) — Authentication — Order not to be questioned —
Held further: An order authenticated in the manner prescribed shall not be called in question on the ground that it was not made or executed by the Governor, and executive action carries a presumption of regularity. (¶25, ¶30)
Sanction to prosecute — Statement of the signing authority — Legal effect of the order unaffected —
Held further: A statement made during investigation by the officer who signed cannot override, alter or diminish the legal effect of an official order; a witness's description of the character of an official act does not determine its validity. (¶28, ¶29)
Quashing — Disputed facts and evidence — Matters for the trial —
Held further: On a petition to quash, the Court cannot appreciate the witnesses' statements, record findings on disputed facts, or decide whether the prosecution is malicious; those belong to the trial. Petition dismissed. (¶34, ¶37, ¶38)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 34Further, it is relevant to rely upon the judgments of 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 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Paragraph 36The 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 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 constitute 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 constitute 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.
Paragraph 37Further this Court cannot observe at this stage as to whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore.
Acts & Sections
s.19(1)(b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Art.163 Constitution of IndiaArt.166 Constitution of IndiaArt.166(2) Constitution of Indias.528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s.161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Tamil Nadu Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions, 1978One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of P.Selvaraja v. The State — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →