Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7030 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.8702 of 2021
1. Ramamoorthy
2. Narasimman @ Narasingam ... Petitioners / A1 and A2
-Vs-
1. The Inspector of Police,
Kachirapalayam Police Station,
Kallakurichi District. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2. S. Chidambaram ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in STC.No.32 of 2021
pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Kallakurichi.
For Petitioner : Mr. C. Rajan
For R1 : Mr. A. Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R2 : Mr. S. Sasikumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in S.T.C.No.32 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate - I, Kallakurichi, filed for the alleged offences under Sections
294(b) and 324 of IPC.
2. It is alleged that on account of the dispute over the pathway, the
petitioners had abused the defacto complainant and committed the
offence of assault and also abused him in filthy language.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that with
respect to the same occurrence, the 1st petitioner had lodged the complaint
against the defacto complainant and others and the respondent police had
filed a final report against them for the alleged offences under Sections
147, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC. The learned counsel submitted that the
1st respondent ought not to have filed final report in both the complaints,
which are contrary to each other. Since, the respondent police have
violated the guidelines issued under Section 566 of the Police Standing
Orders, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2021
4.The learned Additiona1 Public Prosecutor submitted that
pursuant to the investigation conducted in both the complaints, the 1st
respondent had filed final reports in both the complaints, out of which
one is impugned in this quash petition and the other final report is
pending trial in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
– I, Kallakurichi.
5.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant, per contra,
submitted that it is true that there is a final report filed against the defacto
complainant and others in C.C.No.19 of 2020 as stated by the learned
Additiona1 Public Prosecutor. But in any case, the complaint filed by
him, which is impugned in this final report is not liable to be quashed.
The learned counsel further submitted that in the event of this Court
holding that the respondent police has violated the procedure prescribed
in the Police Standing orders, the final report against him also is liable
to be quashed.
6.This Court had repeatedly held that though the Police Standing
orders may not have statutory force, but the instructions in the Police
Standing orders are based on common sense and logic and issued https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2021
pursuant to the judgment of this Court reported in [AIR 1954 Mad 442],
Thota Ramakrishnayya & others Vs. The State. The 1st respondent
ought to have followed the said procedure. In the instant case, the 1 st
respondent has merely acted as a post office and filed final reports
accepting both the versions as true. As repeatedly held by this Court,
there cannot be two versions, which are contrary to each other. Either one
of the versions has to be false or both the versions have to be false. This
Court cannot allow the impugned final report in S.T.C.No.32 of 2021 and
the final report in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate –
I, Kallakurichi, knowing that either both are false or one is false. The
trial of the accused in both the final reports are likely to be cause serious
prejudice to them.
7.In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view, the
impugned final report in S.T.C.No.32 of 2021 and the final report in
C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I,
Kallakurichi, pending against the defacto complainant and others, are
liable to be quashed, though the defacto complainant has not filed any
quash petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2021
8.With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
26.06.2023
smv
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order
To,
1.The Inspector of Police, Kachirapalayam Police Station, Kallakurichi District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate - I, Kallakurichi.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
smv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2021
Crl.O.P.No.15984 of 2021
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!