Dinesh Kumar vs The State
2023 Latest Caselaw 6689 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6689 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 June, 2023

Madras High Court

Dinesh Kumar vs The State on 21 June, 2023

Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.06.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Criminal Original Petition No. 6510 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P. No. 4320 of 2021
1.Dinesh Kumar
2.Bharat Kumar
3.Kapoorchand
4.Nenmal
5.Mahendra ... Petitioners
Versus

1.The State
Represented by Inspector of Police,
C-1, Flower Bazar Police Station,
Chennai – 600001.

2.Rajender Singh ... Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records of the

proceedings in C.C. No. 110 of 2021 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, George Town, Chennai pending disposal of the Criminal

Original Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021

For Petitioners : Mr. Govind Chandrasekhar

For Respondents : Mr. A. Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1.

Mr. S. Santhosh for R2.

ORDER

The petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 110 of 2021

on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai

filed for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 323, 324 read with 149

of the Indian Penal Code.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed, since the Investigation

Officer after conducting investigation, in the case registered against the

petitioners and the case filed by one of the petitioners, has filed final

report in both the cases; and that this is in violation of the settled position

of law; that when there is a case in counter case, it the duty of the

Investigation Officer to find out as to who is the aggressor and file final

report only against the aggressor; and that if the Investigation Officer is

unable to find out, as to who is the aggressor, then action has to be

dropped against the accused in both cases.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the

complaint given by the one of the petitioners, a case in C.C. No. 111 of

2021 is pending trial before the same Court against the second

respondent and others for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 323

read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the

defacto complainant submitted that this Court in a petition to quash,

cannot adjudicate as to which of the two versions is false. Since the first

respondent has filed final reports in both the complaints, it is desirable

that both the final reports are tried or both are quashed. The learned

counsel further prayed that in the event of this Court agreeing to quash

the impugned final report, the final report pending against the second

respondent and others in C.C. No. 111 of 2021 also may be quashed.

4.It is seen that for the very same occurrence one of the petitioners

and the second respondent had given complaints. This has resulted in

filing of two final reports. The investigation was conducted by the very

same Investigating Officer in both the cases. It is the matter of common

sense, that when there are two versions with regard to the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021

occurrence both cannot be true. Either one has to be true or both has to

be false. That is the reason for the procedure that is laid down in 566 of

the Police Standing Orders, where there are clear instructions to the

Investigation Officer, as to how to deal with the cases and counter cases.

5.It is also seen from the series of Judgments relied upon by the

learned counsels on either side that merely because the Police Standing

Orders is violated, the final reports cannot be quashed as the Police

Standing Orders do not have statutory force. However, in the instant case,

this Court is not relying upon only the Police Standing Orders for

entertaining this petition. Admittedly, in this case, the first respondent

has filed two final reports which are contrary to each other. As stated

earlier, either both the versions have to be false or one has to be false.

The Investigating Officer is required to assess the truth and not act as a

mere post office to accept both the versions and file final reports without

ascertaining which one of them is true. It is needless to say that the

Investigating Officer after collecting the materials during investigation can

form an opinion as to whether the version of the complainant is true or

not. In the instant case, no such exercise has been done. This Court

cannot allow the prosecutions based on the final reports knowing that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021

either both the versions have to be false or at least one has to be false.

The learned counsel on either side submit that prejudice is caused to both

the parties on account of two final reports.

6.Further, this Court in Vellapandy Thevar and Others Vs. State

rep.by the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli

Dt., reported in [1984 LW (Crl.) 257], after following the Judgment of

this Court in Thota Ramakrishnayya & Others Vs. The State reported in

AIR 1954 Mad 442 had held as follows:

“7.As pointed out by this Court in Thota Ramakrishna v. State, AIR 1954 Mad 442.

“It is improper for the police to prosecute the same time two counter cases in regard to the same occurrence one of which must be false. It is improper also and disrespectful to the court for the Public Prosecutor to conduct both cases in the sessions court knowing that one must be false. Such counter-cases cannot both be prosecuted honestly either by the police or the public prosecutor.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021

7.This Court on a reading of the final report in the instant case

finds that in view of the two final reports, prejudice has been caused to

both the parties. In such circumstances, in view of the prayer made by the

learned counsels on either side that both the final reports may be

quashed, this Court is inclined to quash both the final reports in the

interest of justice. Therefore, for all the above reasons, both the final

reports in C.C. Nos. 110 & 111 of 2021 on the file of the VIII

Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai are quashed in the

interest of justice, as there cannot be two final reports giving contrary

versions for the same incident.