The High Court of Madras quashed two mutually contradictory final reports filed for the same occurrence under IPC sections 147, 323, 324, 149, causing prejudice to both parties, allowing the criminal original petition for quashes.
Both final reports in C.C. Nos. 110 & 111 of 2021 were quashed in the interest of justice.
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 OP No. 6510 / 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Criminal Original Petition No. 6510 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P. No. 4320 of 2021
1.Dinesh Kumar
2.Bharat Kumar
3.Kapoorchand
4.Nenmal
5.Mahendra ... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State Represented by Inspector of Police, C-1, Flower Bazar Police Station,
Chennai – 600001.
2.Rajender Singh ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records of the
proceedings in C.C. No. 110 of 2021 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai pending disposal of the Criminal Original Petition.
1/8
Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021
For Petitioners : Mr. Govind Chandrasekhar
For Respondents : Mr. A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1.
Mr. S. Santhosh for R2.
O R D E R
The petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 110 of 2021
on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai filed for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 323, 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed, since the Investigation Officer after conducting investigation, in the case registered against the petitioners and the case filed by one of the petitioners, has filed final report in both the cases; and that this is in violation of the settled position of law; that when there is a case in counter case, it the duty of the Investigation Officer to find out as to who is the aggressor and file final report only against the aggressor; and that if the Investigation Officer is unable to find out, as to who is the aggressor, then action has to be dropped against the accused in both cases.
2/8
Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the
complaint given by the one of the petitioners, a case in C.C. No. 111 of 2021 is pending trial before the same Court against the second respondent and others for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that this Court in a petition to quash, cannot adjudicate as to which of the two versions is false. Since the first respondent has filed final reports in both the complaints, it is desirable that both the final reports are tried or both are quashed. The learned counsel further prayed that in the event of this Court agreeing to quash the impugned final report, the final report pending against the second respondent and others in C.C. No. 111 of 2021 also may be quashed.
4.It is seen that for the very same occurrence one of the petitioners and the second respondent had given complaints. This has resulted in filing of two final reports. The investigation was conducted by the very same Investigating Officer in both the cases. It is the matter of common sense, that when there are two versions with regard to the same 3/8
Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021
occurrence both cannot be true. Either one has to be true or both has to be false. That is the reason for the procedure that is laid down in 566 of the Police Standing Orders, where there are clear instructions to the Investigation Officer, as to how to deal with the cases and counter cases.
5.It is also seen from the series of Judgments relied upon by the learned counsels on either side that merely because the Police Standing Orders is violated, the final reports cannot be quashed as the Police Standing Orders do not have statutory force. However, in the instant case, this Court is not relying upon only the Police Standing Orders for entertaining this petition. Admittedly, in this case, the first respondent has filed two final reports which are contrary to each other. As stated earlier, either both the versions have to be false or one has to be false. The Investigating Officer is required to assess the truth and not act as a mere post office to accept both the versions and file final reports without ascertaining which one of them is true. It is needless to say that the Investigating Officer after collecting the materials during investigation can form an opinion as to whether the version of the complainant is true or not. In the instant case, no such exercise has been done. This Court cannot allow the prosecutions based on the final reports knowing that 4/8
Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021
either both the versions have to be false or at least one has to be false. The learned counsel on either side submit that prejudice is caused to both the parties on account of two final reports.
6.Further, this Court in Vellapandy Thevar and Others Vs. State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli
Dt., reported in [1984 LW (Crl.) 257], after following the Judgment of this Court in Thota Ramakrishnayya & Others Vs. The State reported in
AIR 1954 Mad 442 had held as follows:
“7 .As pointed out by this Court in Thota Ramakrishna v. State, AIR 1954 Mad 442.
“It is improper for the police to prosecute the same time two counter cases in regard to the same occurrence one of which must be false. It is improper also and disrespectful to the court for the Public Prosecutor to conduct both cases in the sessions court knowing that one must be false. Such counter-cases cannot both be prosecuted honestly either by the police or the public prosecutor.”
5/8
Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021
7.This Court on a reading of the final report in the instant case finds that in view of the two final reports, prejudice has been caused to both the parties. In such circumstances, in view of the prayer made by the learned counsels on either side that both the final reports may be quashed, this Court is inclined to quash both the final reports in the interest of justice. Therefore, for all the above reasons, both the final reports in C.C. Nos. 110 & 111 of 2021 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai are quashed in the interest of justice, as there cannot be two final reports giving contrary versions for the same incident.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.06.2023 ay Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
6/8
Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021
1.The Inspector of Police, C-1, Flower Bazar Police Station, Chennai – 600001.
SUNDER MOHAN, J
ay
Crl.O.P. No.6510 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No. 4320 of 2021
7/8
Crl OP No. 6510 / 2021
Dated: 21.06.2023
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings can be quashed when two final reports filed by the I.O. for the same occurrence are mutually contradictory.
Whether the High Court can quash both final reports on the ground of mutually exclusive versions causing prejudice.
Whether the Investigating Officer has the duty to ascertain aggression and not proceed against both parties when facts do not establish the aggressor.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vellapandy Thevar and Others Vs. StateFollowed¶45
Vellapandy Thevar and Others Vs. State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli
Thota Ramakrishnayya & Others Vs. The StateFollowed¶46
Thota Ramakrishnayya & Others Vs. The State AIR 1954 Mad 442 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar and Others
The State
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
