SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1977

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Dharmenthiran – Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Elayangudi Police Station – Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 1063 of 2021, Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 7924 of 2021
Decided On : 01-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: V. Kathirvelu, K. Navaneetharaja
For the Respondents: R.M. Anbunithi, N. Karthik Kanna

The court emphasized the need for a definitive investigation to resolve contradictory accounts in cases involving rival versions of the same incident.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of charge sheet - Petition filed to quash final report in P.R.C. No. 9 of 2020 - Court found that both final reports filed by the investigating officer were contradictory and unsustainable - The investigating officer failed to unearth the truth and provide a definitive version of the incident - Fresh investigation ordered to ascertain the correct version. (Paras 7.6 and 8.1)

(B) Investigation - The court emphasized the necessity for a thorough investigation to determine the true aggressor in cases involving rival versions of the same incident, as per the Full Bench judgment in T. Balaji vs. State. (Paras 7.1 and 7.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet related to the murder of their father, Kannusamy, amidst a family dispute involving allegations of mutual aggression between two families. The incident occurred on Diwali, leading to the death of Kannusamy and injuries to members of both families. (Paras 3 and 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found both final reports unsustainable due to their contradictory nature and ordered a fresh investigation to establish a definitive version of the events. (Paras 7.6 and 8.1)

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the final reports and the necessity for a thorough investigation to determine the true aggressor in the incident. (Paras 7.1 and 8.1)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the investigating officer must provide a single, definitive version of the incident, as the existence of contradictory final reports indicated a failure to properly investigate the matter. (Paras 7.6 and 8.1)

Result: Petition allowed; final reports set aside and fresh investigation ordered.

ORDER :

Prayer: This Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in P.R.C. No. 09 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi and quash the same.

(A) The Petition:

1. This Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the final report filed in P.R.C. No. 9 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi and quash the same and pass further orders.

(B) The Arguments:

2. Heard Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. R.M. Anbunithi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. Karthick Kanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/defacto complainant.

2.1 Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the father of the petitioners 1 to 5 was murdered in the transaction and only to save their skin, as a counterblast, the defacto complainant has given the present complaint. The defacto complainant and the family of the defacto complainant did not even sustain any grievous injury in the transaction. They were the aggressors and there was not even any attack by the petitioners, who were all members of the same family. The final report is filed without properly investigating the false countercase. One of the petitioners has completed Law and is awaiting enrolment for no fault him since the present final report has been filed. The other case, in which, the defacto complainant and her family members are the accused is also pending before the same learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi. The learned Senior Counsel would place reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T. Balaji vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station, 2024 (4) LW 534. He would submit that absolutely, no effort whatsoever has been taken by the investigating officer to find out the truth and therefore, this Court has to interfere.

2.2. Mr. R.M. Anbunithi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the investigation is duly carried on and the final report has been filed in accordance with law. When the same is pending committal, the quash petition cannot be entertained by this Court and no ground is made out for interference by this Court.

2.3. Mr. Karthick Kanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would submit that even in the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the Hon'ble Full Bench has differentiated the cases arising out of the same transaction into Type-I and Type-II and this case falls under Type-II and 3rd category mentioned in Type-II, that is both parties have exceeded the bounds of law and committed offence against each other. According to him, it can be seen that there was no aggressor or defender in the instant case. Therefore, finding truth in the allegations of both cases, final reports have been filed in both cases as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench. All further contentions can be gone into during the trial alone. The quash application is filed on factual contentions and no ground is made out for entertaining the quash application hence the same should be dismissed.

(C) The Factual Back ground:

3. The factual premises unfurl like a typical Tamil movie plot. The grandfather of the petitioners' herein had two wives. The deceased Kannusamy was the son born through the first wife. Pappa is his half-sister born through the second wife. They were residing in the opposite house. Pappa is married to one Karuppiah. Karuppiah’s cousin sister Revathy is the wife of Kannusamy. There were long-standing property and other disputes. Amidst this, the son of Pappa, namely, Jegatheesan got married to Kowsalya his maternal uncle Kannusamy’s daughter. They are living in the nearby town of Paramakudi. However, when both of them come to the native village, the husband and wife will go to their respective houses and will not come t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top