DANDAPANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the B party to quash the proceedings in STC No. 286 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) The third petitioner herein, namely, Sekar lodged a complaint before the respondent herein alleging that on 1.2.1999 at about 7.30 a.m., he and other petitioners herein were attacked by one Gurusamy and four others and they sustained injuries and it was registered in Crime No. 113 of 1999 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 325, 427 and 323 of IPC against Gurusamy and four others. In respect of the same occurrence, the son of Gurusamy, namely, Jai Ganesh, lodged a complaint before the respondent alleging that the petitioners herein attacked and injured him and it was registered in Crime No. 114 of 1999 for offences under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC against the petitioners herein. In both the complaints, the occurrence is one and the same and hence it is a case of complaint and counter complaint arising out of the same transaction. The respondent, after investigation, instead of filing a final report either positive or negative in both the complaints, adopted a short circuit method of charging both the parties for an offence of affray under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code arraying the petitioners as B party and the other party as A party, which gave rise to the present petition by the B party.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the proceedings initiated before the Court below are liable to be quashed for two reasons The first ground raised is that the respondent, namely. Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai town, did not proceed to investigate the case in accordance with Rule 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders which governs the manner in which the investigation will have to be conducted in respect of case and counter case. Rule 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Order stipulates that in a complaint and counter complaint arising out of a same transaction, the investigation officer has to enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses, namely, (1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors or (2) to refer both the cases if he finds them untrue. If the Investigation Officer finds that either of the course is difficult, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and act accordingly. A final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law and the complainant or the counter complainant, as the case may be, should be advised about the disposal by a notice in Form 96 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the police. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in M. Krishnaraj and 2 Others (Accused B Party) v. The State, Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B-1 North Beach Police Station, Madras. Janarthanam, J. has held that in a case and counter case, mandate is cast upon the investigation officer to enquire into both of them and adopt one of the two courses provided in Rule 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders and filing of a report against both the parties for the offence of affray under Section 160 of IPC is not legal and is liable to be quashed and I am in entire agreement with the view expressed therein.