Madras High Court
Sathyaraj vs State Rep. By on 19 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.No.1683 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.1683 of 2023
AND
Crl.M.P.Nos.920 & 921 of 2023
Sathyaraj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Sulur Police Station
Coimbatore 641 402
2.Bharani Vidhyasarathi .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the
records relating to C.C.No.37 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Sulur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prasanthan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.37 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2021, when the 2 nd respondent
and the resident of the opposite house were talking outside the house, their
neighbour along with four persons came and shouted to remove the construction
debris dumped in the 2nd respondent's partially completed building and further
demanded to remove it immediately. While so, the petitioner, who accompanied
the said neighbour abused the 2nd respondent filthily. When this was questioned by
the 2nd respondent's husband, the petitioner slapped and threatened the 2nd
respondent's husband. In this regard, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint, on
which, the 1st respondent conducted investigation and registered FIR in crime
No.838 of 2021, enquired L.W.1 to L.W.8 and filed a final report under Sections
294(b), 323 & 506(I) IPC and the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur, took
cognizance in C.C.No.37 of 2022 and trial is pending. Hence, the petitioner is
before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.37 of 2022.
3. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent and her name appeared in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the cause list, none appeared on behalf of her, when the matter was called.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the materials
placed on record.
5. For the said very same occurrence, a complaint was lodged as against the
2nd respondent's husband and the same was registered in crime No.837 of 2021 for
the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(I) IPC. However, without
proceeding any investigation on the said crime, the 1st respondent completed
investigation on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent and filed a final report
in C.C.No.37 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur. Therefore,
it is a clear violation of the Police Standing Orders 566.
6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
decision of the Full Bench of this Court in a batch of Criminal Original Petitions in
the case of T.Balaji and Another Vs. State and Another (Crl.O.P.No.4587 of
2023 etc. batch decided on 08.08.2024), wherein, it is held as follows :
“59. In the light of the above discussion, the following are our
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
answers to the questions referred to us vide order dated 21.03.2024:
a. The police are required to mandatorily follow the procedure
prescribed in PSO 566 while investigating a case and case in counter i.e.,
rival versions of the same incident.
b. The consequences of non-compliance with PSO 566 would
depend upon the stage at which such an objection is raised. It is the duty
of the Magistrate to screen out final reports which are filed in inconsistent
rival versions of the same incident i.e., where one rival version is true the
other must be necessarily false, by returning with a direction to follow
PSO 566. Where the Magistrate inadvertently takes cognizance, the error
may be set right by the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 if the
same is raised at an early stage. If, however, the trial in such cases is
allowed to go on and has reached an advanced stage, a plea of non-
compliance with the PSO will not ipso facto vitiate trial unless and until a
demonstrable case of prejudice or miscarriage is made out.
c. The police will take note of and scrupulously follow the
guidelines set out in paragraph 58-A, supra.
d. Trial of a case and counter case shall be held simultaneously
before the same Court and the guidelines set out in paragraph 58-B,
supra, shall be followed.”
7. Admittedly, in this case, the FIR in crime No.837 of 2021 is pending for
investigation and no charge sheet has been laid so far. Therefore, the
1st respondent has failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under PSO 566.
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand and as such, the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.37 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Magistrate Court, Sulur is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Connected Crl.M.P.s are closed.
19.02.2025
gya
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
gya
To
1.Judicial Magistrate Court
Sulur
2.The Inspector of Police
Sulur Police Station
Coimbatore 641 402
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
