Madras High Court
K.M.S.Sivakumar vs The State Rep.By on 22 October, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.No.23676 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.23676 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.No.13397 of 2024
1.K.M.S.Sivakumar
2.M.Ragasarathy
3.K.Arun ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Padhirivedu Police Station,
Thiruvallur District
Crime No.417/2021
2.P.Sridhar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS,
pleased to call for the records and to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.4
of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Gummidipoondi.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.R.Ravi
For R1 : Mr.S.Udayakumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.S.Sasikumar
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the C.C.No.4 of
2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Gummidipoondi, for offence under Sections 323, 506(i) IPC r/w 34 IPC.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the 1 st petitioner being the
elected Union Councilor of Eguvarpalayam Panchayat, he has been
prevented from participating in the Grama Sabha meeting and been
insulted by using caste name of the defacto complainant and others.
When that was objected and brought to the notice of the police, a false
complaint lodged against him as if he and others disturbed the Grama
Sabha meeting held on 02.10.2021 and the case has been registered for
the above said offences.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits
that on the day of occurrence, it was the 1st petitioner who along with his
wife and others made ruckus and disturbed the peaceful conduct of
Grama Sabha meeting. However, suppressing the fact, he has given a
complaint before the respondent police making false allegations as if he
has been insulted by using caste name and the case in Crime No.417 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2021 was registered by the respondent police, investigated by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Gummidipoondi and final report filed in
S.C.No.158 of 2023.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further
submits that the petitioner has chronic habit of false complaint taking
advantage of his caste. Earlier complaint with similar allegations was
enquired and closed as Mistake of Facts.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for
the respondent police submits that regarding the incident which took
place on 02.10.2021 during Gramasabha meeting, the police has
registered complaint in Crime No.417 of 2021 on the complaint given by
the 1st petitioner and Crime No.418 of 2021 on the complaint given by
Sridhar. Since the 1st petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste, his complaint
was investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gummidipoondi for
offence under Section SC/ST along with IPC offences. Whereas, the
complaint given by Sridhar was investigated by the Inspector of Police,
Padhirivedu Police Station and in both the cases, final report filed before
the appropriate Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. This Court finds that there is a grave procedural violation in
the investigation of the complaint and contrary to the Police Standing
Order 566, the complaint and complaint in counter arising out of same
incident been investigated by two different Investigating Officers.
Without reference to the other complaint, final report filed without
ascertaining who is the aggressor or both are aggressors to each other. In
the said circumstances, the case and case in counter are likely to be tried
by two different Judicial Officers of different rank. This will lead to great
miscarriage of justice and also contrary to the guidelines laid down by
this Hon'ble Court in Balaji Vs.State of Tamil Nadu as formulated in
Paragraph 58 and 59 of the said judgment. It is appropriate to withdraw
the final report filed in both the cases arising out of Crime No.417 and
418 of 2021 and the cases are to be entrusted to any police officer not
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and same has to be
investigated. Final report should be filed after ascertaining who is the
aggressor and it must be in consonance with PSO 566 and the guidelines
formulated by the Full Bench of this Court cited supra. If both the parties
are found to be the aggressor, final report in both the cases should reflect
the reasoning for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence available and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to arrive at right decision. The final report should be filed before the
appropriate Court and to be tried by the same Court. If the Investigating
Officer is of the opinion that final reports should be filed in one case and
in other case action to be dropped. In the final report, he should assign
the reason why the action dropped in other case.
7. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is
disposed of. As a result, to implement the above direction, the final
reports in both the cases stands quashed. The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur shall appoint any Investigating Officer not below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate both the cases and file
final report preferably within four months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order as per the direction in paragraph 6 supra. Consequently, the
connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.10.2024
rpl
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Padhirivedu Police Station,
Thiruvallur District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
