Madras High Court
R.Ravikumar vs State Rep. By on 10 August, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 14.07.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No.17213 of 2018
1. R.Ravikumar
2. R.Ashokkumar
3. M.Ramasamy
4. R.Rajam .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Erumapatty Police Station,
Namakkal District. ... 1st respondent/Complainant
(Cr.No.301/2017)
2. D.Balan ... 2nd respondent/Defacto complainant
PRAYER : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.C.No.12 of 2019 pending on the file of
the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Cr.No.301
of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
_____________
Page No.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar (for R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Mr.R.K.Gandhi (for R2)
ORDER
Accused A1 to A4 are the petitioners herein, seeking quashment of S.C.No.12 of 2019, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
(2) Facts leading to the filing of the above Criminal Original Petition are as under:
(i) The 1st respondent police, during the duty hours had received an intimation from the Salem Government Hospital and visited the same and on an enquiry conducted by him, the defacto complainant who was admitted and treated as an in-patient in the government hospital had furnished a statement, based on which, on 30.07.2017, the 1st respondent herein had registered a case in Crime No.301 of 2017 against the petitioners/accused for alleged offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC and section _____________ Page No.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
(ii) On the very same day, the 1st respondent police had enquired and recorded the statement of one Rajam wife of Ramasamy who was also admitted and being treated as in-patient in Salem Government Hospital.
The petitioner further submits that on 30.07.2017, based on the statement recorded from one Rajam, the 1st respondent police had registered another case in Crime No.302 of 2017 against one Balan (defacto complainant herein) and two other persons for an offence under Sections 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC.
(iii) After completion of the simultaneous investigation in Crime Nos.301 and 302 of 2017, the 1st respondent police on 01.08.2018 had filed the final report in Crime No.301 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal against the petitioners and 8 other accused persons for an alleged offence under Sections 147, 149, 294(b), 506(1), _____________ Page No.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018 352of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
(iv) With respect to the Crime No.302 of 2017, on 01.08.2018, the 1st respondent police had filed the final report in C.C.No.374 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal against the defacto complainant and three other persons for an offence under Sections 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, investigation is completed, final report is filed and PRC is numbered as 17 of 2018 and on committal numbered as SC.No.12 of 2019.
3. Seeking to quash the said Sessions Case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent police had failed to conduct the investigation in a proper perspective and grossly erred in filing two separate charge-sheets for one single occurrence in Crime Nos.301 of 2017 and 302 of 2017, is highly unimaginable, as the same is non-est in the eye of law.
_____________ Page No.4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018
4. As per Madras Police Standing Orders PSO 566, the 1 st respondent police, out of the resultant investigation in Cr.Nos.301 of 2017 and 302 of 2017, ought to have filed a charge sheet in any one of the above crime numbers by way of identifying the real aggressor and closing the false complaint as mistake of act. It is submitted that for acts arising out of same transaction, if two different complaints have been lodged, the 1st respondent police ought to have taken recourse as per Rule 566 of Madras Police Standing Order which read as follows:
PSO 566 “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 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” .
5. According to the petitioner, by way of charge-sheeting both the cases in Crime Nos.301 and 302 of 2017, greater prejudice has been caused _____________ Page No.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018 to the petitioner as he cannot put forth his accusation as against the opposite party who is the real aggressor and relied upon the decision reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 17016 [K.Veeramani and Others vs. Union Territory of Puducherry, rep. By the Sub-Inspector of Police and Others].
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-observance of the Madras Police Standing Order PSO 566 in respect of case and counter case wherein without ascertaining who is the real aggressor, a positive final report is filed in both the cases.
7. It is a setted principle of law that the Madras Police Standing Order, PSO No.566 is only administrative in nature and has no statutory force. In other words, it is only a directory in nature and it is not a mandatory. Merely because, two separate positive charge sheets have been made, the same need not be quashed for the non compliance of the above said PSO No.566, as held by this Court in V.Karthikeyan and Ors. V. State of Sub Inspector of Police & Others, reported in (1992) Cri LJ 2948. _____________ Page No.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018
8. In M/s.R.K.R.Gold Bullion Private Limited, vs. Muthusamy and two others, [Crl.R.C.No.422 of 2018 dated 23.09.2021], this Court has taken a view that simultaneous trial has to be carried on in respect of these kinds of final reports in both the cases, being filed.
9. In the case on hand, I find that in view of the alleged offence under Section 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, one case has been committed to Sessions viz., the present one in S.C.No.12 of 2009, whereas in respect of the other case, the case is in C.C.No.374 of 2018 before the learned Magistrate, Namakkal for the Cr.No.302 of 2017. Therefore, I find that in the interest of justice, following the earlier decision rendered by me in R.K.R.Gold Bullion's case [cited supra], and in order to facilitate the simultaneous trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Namakkal, is hereby required to give committal of C.C.No.374 of 2018 by exercising powers under Section 323 of Cr.P.C and on such committal, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, _____________ Page No.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018 Namakkal, shall club the case along with S.C.No.12 of 2019 and follow the procedures contemplated for simultaneous trial in the above said judicial pronouncement and dispose of the same.
10. With these observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.08.2022 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No ars _____________ Page No.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J., ars To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
2. The Judicial Magistrate-1, Namakkal.
3. The Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Namakkal District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Pre-delivery order in Crl.O.P.No.29328 of 2018 10.08.2022 _____________ Page No.9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis