Court allowed Criminal Original Petition seeking quash of final report. Held that final report violates police standing orders by filing reports sequentially for same transaction, applying prior observation that such conduct is contrary to police directives.
Final report against petitioners is quashed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.1776 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P. No.1776 of 2021 & Crl.M.P.Nos. 1028 & 1029 of 2021
1.Anitha 2.Anjalai ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police Chithamur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.
2.Subramani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the Calendar Case in C.C.No.146 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur and quash the same.
1/5
Crl.O.P.No.1776 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr. C.Mageshkumar For Respondent 1 : Mr. S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Respondent 2 : No Appearance.
O R D E R
The petition is filed to quash the final report filed for the offences of Sections 294 (b), 323 and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman
Act, 2002.
Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
entered appearance.
2/5
Crl.O.P.No.1776 of 2021
2021 had quashed the proceedings against the co-accused and had observed as follows:
“ 5. This Court finds that admittedly there is an FIR filed by the first petitioner in Crime No.552 of 2017 against the defacto complainant. The FIR registered against the petitioners has culminated in the impugned final report. It is admitted that Crime Nos.552 and 553 of 2017 arise out of the same transaction. The respondent police ought to have adopted one of the two courses available to them as spelt out in the Police Standing Orders. The respondent police cannot file a final report in one case first and thereafter investigate and file final report in the other case later. Such a course adopted would be in clear violation of the police standing orders besides causing prejudice to the petitioners. It is clear that the object of the said provision is to avoid two versions which are contrary to each other being placed before the Court in the form of two final reports. Since the action of the respondent police is contrary to the said police standing orders, the impugned final report is liable to be quashed and hence
3/5
Crl.O.P.No.1776 of 2021
quashed.”
5. The above observation squarely applies to the petitioners herein and the final report is liable to be quashed against the petitioner also. Therefore, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
06.06.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No
kan
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur.
2.The Inspector of Police Chithamur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.
4/5
Crl.O.P.No.1776 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
kan
Crl.O.P.No. 1776 of 2021
06.06.2023
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned final report against the petitioners is liable to be quashed based on the observations in the connected application regarding police standing orders.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Anitha
Anjalai
The State rep by The Inspector of Police Chithamur Police Station, Kancheepuram District
Subramani
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SUNDER MOHAN
Parties & counsel
