Madras High Court
S.N.Krishnamurthy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 December, 2021
Crl.O.P. No.6677 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. No.6677 of 2017
and CRL.M.P.Nos.4888 &4889 of 2017
S.N.Krishnamurthy ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Inspector of Police,
Gudiyatham Police Station,
Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
(Crime.No.687 of 2015).
2.N.Gandhi prasath
(Impleaded the 2nd respondent
as per the order of this Court
dated 05.06.2017 Crl.M.P.No.6807 of 2017
in Crl.O.P.No.6677/2017) ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code,praying to call for the records on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Gudiyatham in PRC. No.2 of 2017 pertaining to Crime No.687 of
2015 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.side) for R1
Mr.D.Rajagopal for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P. No.6677 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham in PRC. No.2 of 2017 pertaining
to Crime No.687 of 2015 and quash the same.
2. The crux of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused is the brother
of the defacto complainant. Due to a dispute over the property, in order to do
away with the defacto complainant, the petitioner made an attempt to run over
the defacto complainant using his car bearing Registration
No.TN-02-AW-5657. As a result, the defacto complainant fell down and
sustained injuries, the same has been witnessed by the witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main ground on
which the prosecution sought to be quashed is that there is a counter case
registered against the defacto complainant. The Police has not filed any
connected papers in the counter case in Crime No.687 of 2015. Therefore, it
violates the procedures contemplated under Section 566 of the Police Standing
Orders. Therefore, the entire final report has to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.6677 of 2017
4. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner also
relied upon the judgments of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.25782 and 25789 of
2017 dated 22.11.2019 and Crl.O.P.No.9329 of 2015 dated 24.09.2020.
5. This Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.25782 and 25789 of 2017 has quashed the
final report mainly on the ground that Section 566 of Police Standing Orders is
not followed.
6. At the outset, I am of the view that merely because the charge sheet
papers has not been annexed along with the main charge sheet, that cannot be a
ground to quash the entire proceedings while exercising power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
7. It is relevant to refer Section 566 of Police Standing Order hereunder:
566. Investigation to be impartial:
(1) Investigating officers are warned against prematurely
committing themselves to any view of the facts for, or against a
person. The aim of an investigating officer should be to find out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.6677 of 2017
the truth, and, to achieve this purpose, it is necessary to
preserve an open mind throughout the Inquiry.
(2) Charge-sheets in cases and counter cases.—In a
complaint and counter complaint obviously arising out of the
same transaction, the investigating officer should enquire into
both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses viz.,
(1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors or
(2) to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue. He
should place before the court a definite case which he asks it to
accept. The investigating officer in such cases should not accept
into one complaint and examine only witnesses who support it
and gave no explanation at all for the injuries caused to the
other side. It is his duty to exhibit the counter-complaint in the
court, and also to prove medical certificates of persons wounded
on the opposite side. The truth in these cases is invariably not in
strict conformity with either complaint and it is quite necessary
that all the facts are placed before the Court to enable it to
arrive at the truth and a just decision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.6677 of 2017
(3) If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice of
either course is difficult, viz., to charge one of the two cases or
to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the Public
Prosecutor of the district and act accordingly. A final report
should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law
and the complainant or the counter-complainant, as the case
may be, should be advised about the disposal by a notice in
Form No. 90 and to seek remedy before the specified
Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the
Police.
8. In view of the above, though the duty cast of the Investigation Officer
to file the connected papers, when he choses to file charge sheet in only one
case, at the most, the non filing may be violation of the standing order. Those
documents can also summoned by the Trial Court. At any event, only if the
Police is not able to give the definite opinion as who is Aggressor, then both the
cases to be charge sheeted. The Trial Court has to find out the same from the
evidence. Therefore, merely because Police has not followed the procedures
contemplated under Section 566 of the Police Standing Orders, the entire report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.6677 of 2017
cannot be quashed.
9. It is to be noted that filing of final report is the duty of the Police
Officer and there is no requirement of obtaining opinion of the Public
Prosecutor. Therefore, the order of this Court placed before this Bench in my
view cannot be correct, as no opinion of Public Prosecutor is required for filing
of final report.
10. In such view of the mater, I am of the view that merely on violation of
proceedings of Police Standing Order, the final report cannot be quashed. At
the most, it will be proper defence of the accused before the Trial Court. It is for
the petitioner to take all his defence before the trial Court.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
msv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.6677 of 2017
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Gudiyatham Police Station,
Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P. No.6677 of 2017
msv
Crl. O.P. No.6677 of 2017
and CRL.M.P.Nos.4888 &4889 of 2017
17.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
