The court emphasized the administrative nature of the standing order and the importance of simultaneous trial for related cases to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.C.No.12 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Cr.No.301 of 2017 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.)

1. Accused A1 to A4 are the petitioners herein, seeking quashment of S.C.No.12 of 2019, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

(2) Facts leading to the filing of the above Criminal Original Petition are as under:

(i) The 1st respondent police, during the duty hours had received an intimation from the Salem Government Hospital and visited the same and on an enquiry conducted by him, the defacto complainant who was admitted and treated as an in-patient in the government hospital had furnished a statement, based on which, on 30.07.2017, the 1st respondent herein had registered a case in Crime No.301 of 2017 against the petitioners/accused for alleged offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC and section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

(ii) On the very same day, the 1st respondent police had enquired and recorded the statement of one Rajam wife of Ramasamy who was also admitted and being treated as in-patient in Salem Government Hospital. The petitioner further submits that on 30.07.2017, based on the statement recorded from one Rajam, the 1st respondent police had registered another case in Crime No.302 of 2017 against one Balan (defacto complainant herein) and two other persons for an offence under Sections 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC.

(iii) After completion of the simultaneous investigation in Crime Nos.301 and 302 of 2017, the 1st respondent police on 01.08.2018 had filed the final report in Crime No.301 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal against the petitioners and 8 other accused persons for an alleged offence under Sections 147, 149, 294(b), 506(1), 352of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

(iv) With respect to the Crime No.302 of 2017, on 01.08.2018, the 1st respondent police had filed the final report in C.C.No.374 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal against the defacto complainant and three other persons for an offence under Sections 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, investigation is completed, final report is filed and PRC is numbered as 17 of 2018 and on committal numbered as SC.No.12 of 2019.

3. Seeking to quash the said Sessions Case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent police had failed to conduct the investigation in a proper perspective and grossly erred in filing two separate charge-sheets for one single occurrence in Crime Nos.301 of 2017 and 302 of 2017, is highly unimaginable, as the same is non-est in the eye of law.

4. As per Madras Police Standing Orders PSO 566, the 1st respondent police, out of the resultant investigation in Cr.Nos.301 of 2017 and 302 of 2017, ought to have filed a charge sheet in any one of the above crime numbers by way of identifying the real aggressor and closing the false complaint as mistake of act. It is submitted that for acts arising out of same transaction, if two different complaints have been lodged, the 1st respondent police ought to have taken recourse as per Rule 566 of Madras Police Standing Order which read as follows:

PSO 566 “In a complaint and counter complaint arising out of a same transaction, the investigation officer has to enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses, namely (1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors or (2) to refer both cases if he finds them untrue. If the investigation officer finds that either of the course is difficult, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and act accordingly. A final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake