This Crl.O.P. seeks quashing of C.C.No.110 of 2023, arguing petitioners are real victims and investigation violated Police Standing Order 566 due to dual investigating officers. The Court disposed of the petition and connected Crl.M.Ps., directing consolidation of investigation.
Disposed of the Crl.O.P. and closed the connected Crl.M.Ps.
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.20767 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.20767 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.11929 & 11930 of 2024
4.D.Manojkumar
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State Rep.by The Sub Inspector of Police, G2, Uthiramerur Police Station, Kancheepuram District FIR No.62/2023
2.Vasanthi ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 BNSS, pleased to call for the records relating to C.C.No.110 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Ms.A.M.Amutha Ganesh For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Mathan Raj O R D E R
Crl.O.P.No.20767 of 2024
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the C.C.No.110 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur on the ground that the petitioners are the real victims and the defacto complainant is the aggressor.
2. The complaint of the defacto complainant in Crime No.62 of 2023 leading to filing of final report and the counter complaint against the defacto complainant and others filed in Crime No.61 of 2023 not been properly investigated. Without any whisper about the counter complaint, final report filed in Crime No.62 of 2023 leading to take cognizance in C.C.No.110 of 2023.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police states that both the cases were investigated by two different Investigating Officers and final report taken cognizance in C.C.Nos.97 and 110 of 2023 respectively and the matter is pending before the same Judicial Officers.
4. The learned counsels for the respective parties submit that
2/4
Crl.O.P.No.20767 of 2024
the accused in Crime No.61 of 2023 are the real aggressors, but the fact remains that in both final reports, there is no reference about the counter case and both the cases been investigated by two different Investigating Officer, which is contrary to Police Standing Order 566. Hence it is appropriate to quash both the final reports in C.C.No.97 of 2023 as well as C.C.No.110 of 2023. The Superintendent of Police is directed to entrust the investigation of both the complaints to one Investigating Officer and he shall complete the investigation and file final report following the dictum laid in Full Bench of this Court in Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu .
5. With the above said observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are closed.
22.10.2024
rpl
To
rpl
3/4
Crl.O.P.No.20767 of 2024
C rl.O.P.No.20767 of 2024
22.10.2024
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under C.C.No.110 of 2023 should be quashed due to issues in investigation including non-compliance with Police Standing Order 566 and failure to investigate counter-co
Whether both complaints investigated by two different officers can be consolidated under the dictum of Balaji vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balaji Vs. State of Tamil NaduApplied¶27
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Boologam
Rajeshkumar
Mageswari
D.Manojkumar
The State
Vasanthi
G.Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
