Non-compliance of provisions causes no illegality.

1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.51 of 1997.

2. A case was registered in Crime No.176 of 1997, by the Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, under Secs.341, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 435 of I.P.C. on the complaint of one Palaniyammal against the petitioners herein. The complaint is that there was a dispute with regard to a pathway between the complainant and her brother. On 10.5.1997, at about 1 p.m., the complainant was proceeding in the disputed pathway for the purpose of drawing water. The sons of the complainant were taking food at that time. At that time, the 1st accused Duraisamy and his wife Arukkani, the second accused questioned the complainant as to how she could come by the said pathway, to which the complainant replied that she also had a right over the pathway. Immediately, the 1st accused took out a stick and hit the complainant, who sustained injury on her right back. Hearing the cry of the complainant, her sons came there and at that time, the 2nd accused Arukkani took out a iron rod and attacked Dakshinamoorthy, the son of the complainant and caused him bleeding injuries on his occipital region. When she again tried to hit Dakshinamoorthy, the complainant intervened and sustained injuries on her right hand. The younger son of the complainant viz., Maheswaran was fisted on his back by Duraisamy. Then Duraisamy threatened that he would do away with the family of the complainant and set fire to the hayrack kept hear to the house of the complainant.

3. On this complainant, investigation was made, charge sheet was laid on 21.6.1997 and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.51 of 1997 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Kodumudi.

4. A complaint was given on 10.5.1997 by Arukkani against Palaniyammal, Dakshinamoorthy and Maheswaran, which was registered under Secs.341, 323, 325 and 324 of I.P.C. The complainant Arukkani alleged in the complaint that her husband had given 50 cents of land to Palaniammal for her residence. The complainant has laid pipeline for irrigation. When the accused wanted the complainant to allow them to take water through the said pipeline, the complainant refused and there was a talk about the same, on 10.5.1997. After the talks were over, the complainants husband along with the complainant went by TVS.50 to the field. When the complainants husband neared the house of Palanaiammal, he was forcibly and unlawfully restrained by Palaniammal, her sons Dakshinamoorthy and Maheswaran, and they beat the complainants husband. When the complainant questioned them as to why they are attacking her husband, she was also attacked, and in that transaction, she sustained injuries on her right elbow, left elbow, left thigh, where she was attacked with knife. Accused Dakshinamoorthy cut her with aruval on her fore-head and caused bleeding injuries. The son of the complainant reported the matter to Chinnasamy, a relative of the complainant, who came there and took the complainant and her husband and admitted them into the Government Erode Hospital.

5. After investigation, chargesheet was laid on 21.6.1997, and the case was taken on file by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi in C.C.No.74 of 1997. Both the cases are now pending for trial before the court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the police failed to follow the direction specified in Madras Police Standing Orders 588-A and the police ought to have referred one of the cases as mistake of fact and charge sheeted the other case after finding who are the aggressors and that there cannot be two cases relating to the same transaction. Therefore, the act of the police in filing charge sheet in both the cases is against the provisions of 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders. Therefore, on this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 1997 has to be quashed.

7. Let me now reproduce the Madras Police Standing Order 588-A.

‘In a co