Madras High Court
Jayakodi vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.18279 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.18279 of 2022
Jayakodi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police
AWPS – All Women Police Station
Ariyalur District
Ariyalur ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to direct the respondent police to club the case and the counter together,
in Crime No.40 of 2021 and Crime No.17 of 2022 on the file of the
respondent police, All Women Police Station, Ariyalur and investigate
the matter by the same police officer in accordance with law.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent police to club the case and the counter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18279 of 2022
case together, in Crime No.40 of 2021 and Crime No.17 of 2022 on the
file of the respondent police, All Women Police Station, Ariyalur and
investigate the matter by the same police officer.
2.Though this petition is filed to club the F.I.R., this Court is of the
view that such prayer cannot be granted because the counter case has
been registered and charge sheet has already been filed and yet to be
numbered in Crime No.17 of 2022 and in Crime No.40 of 2021, charge
sheet is yet to be filed.
3.Such view of the matter, the respondent police is hereby directed
to file a final report in Crime No.40 of 2021 also if the police finds any
charge is required, or negative report to be filed. All the papers,
documents relating to such case also to be filed as document as in the
earlier Crime No.17 of 2022. If the police wants to proceed both the
cases and file final report in both the cases, it should be enquired and
trial should be conducted by the same Magistrate simultaneously and
dispose of the one simultaneously without influencing the evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18279 of 2022
recorded in other case as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 145 in Nathilal and
others V. State of U.P. and another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that where the case and cross case, the same learned Judge must
try both the cross cases one after the other. After recording of evidence
in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve
the judgment. Thereafter, he must proceed to hear the cross case and
after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve
the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter
dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of
the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular
case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into.
Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case.
Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been
placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any
manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18279 of 2022
kas
the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after
the other, which is being the settled position of law.
4.This petition accordingly stands disposed of as per the guidelines
set out in the case of Nathilal and others V. State of U.P. and another
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
04.08.2022
kas
To
1.The Inspector of Police
AWPS – All Women Police Station
Ariyalur District
Ariyalur
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Chennai – 600 104.
CRL.O.P.No.18279 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
