The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 294(b), 323, and 325 IPC after finding that the investigating officer failed to investigate a pending counter-complaint as mandated by Police Standing Order 566, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Quashing of C.C.No.194 of 2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Omalur.
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.10784 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:26.07.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.10784 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.7313 of 2024
Prakasam
.. Petitioner
/versus/
1.State represented by Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station, Salem District.
2.Savukathali
.. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.194 of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Court, Omalur and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.C.Deepakumar For R1 :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :No appearance -----
ORDER
Crl.O.P.No.10784 of 2024
This petition is filed to quash C.C.No.194 of 2018 pending against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 325 of IPC.
Crl.O.P.No.10784 of 2024
is the reason for not proceeding further.
counter case completed and final report filed, however, sofar it was not taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate.
was served through Court on 07.06.2024. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent.
of records, states that the final report in the counter case was filed, but the learned Magistrate has rejected it stating that it is barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. The documents relied by the prosecution in Crime No.846 of 2017 does not contain the counter-complaint given by the petitioner herein, which is registered in Crime No.847 of 2017. The statement recorded in that case is not available.
Crl.O.P.No.10784 of 2024
was the complainant-party is the aggressor. Without proper investigation and following Police Standing Order 566, the Investigating Officer has proceeded one complaint without disclosing the pendency of the counter complaint. The Investigating Officer has thought fit that cognizable office has been made out and has filed final report, but validly which has led to rejection of the final report by the Judicial Magistrate on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the failure of the Investigating Officer in not following the PSO 566 has led to grave miscarriage of justice.
Crl.O.P.No.10784 of 2024
26.07.2024
Index:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order Neutral Citation:yes/no To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Omalur,Salem District. 2.Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station, Salem District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.10784 of 2024
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari
Crl.O.P.No.10784 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.7313 of 2024
26.07.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quashing of C.C.No.194 of 2018 is warranted due to the Investigating Officer's failure to investigate the counter-complaint in accordance with Police Standing Order 566?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Prakasam
State represented by Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station, Salem District
Savukathali
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
