Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2379
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Saraswathi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vasudevanallur Police Station, Tenkasi - Respondent
Crl.OP.(MD) No.1615 of 2026 and Crl.MP(MD).No.1757 of 2026
Decided On : 21-07-2026
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Aruljenifer.
For the Respondents:Mr. G. Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
In cases of rival versions of the same incident, the investigating officer must identify the real aggressor or assign reasons for filing two final reports as per PSO 566; otherwise, the Magistrate must return the reports for a definitive case.
Headnote:The petition was filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.983 of 2025 for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. The case arose from a dispute over a common pathway, resulting in two rival FIRs (Crime Nos. 306 and 307 of 2025) filed by the parties against each other for the same incident. The court found that the investigating officer filed two final reports without assigning reasons and the Magistrate took cognizance of both without proper scrutiny. The primary issue was whether taking cognizance of two final reports representing rival versions of the same incident, without identifying the real aggressor or following prescribed guidelines, is sustainable. The court reasoned that according to the Full Bench decision in T. Balaji and PSO 566, the investigating officer must either identify the real aggressor or assign proper reasons for filing two reports. If the reports present inconsistent rival versions, the Magistrate is duty-bound to return them and direct the officer to provide a definitive case. The orders taking cognizance in STC.No.983 of 2025 and C.C.No. 528 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri stand set aside.
ORDER :
The present petition has been filed by accused persons in S.T.C.No.983 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagiri wherein the petitioners are charged with the offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
(A).Factual Matrix:
2. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioners are residing on the western side of the defacto complainant's house and there is a dispute with regard to a common pathway between them. In the corner of the said common pathway, an electrical post has been erected and E.B.stay wire has been planted by the defacto complainant. At about 3.50 p.m on 21.10.2025, when the defacto complainant was looking at the E.B.stay wire, the first accused came out of his house and abused the defacto complainant and questioned why E.B.stay wire has been planted. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the second accused abused the defacto complainant and attacked him and caused simple injury. Later, there was confrontation between the parties. Based upon the said allegation, an F.I.R came to be registered as against the petitioners in Crime No.307 of 205 on the file of the first respondent police.
3. A counter complaint has been lodged by the first accused in Crime No.307 of 2025 as against the defacto complainant and the same has been registered in the same police station in Crime No.306 of 2025. As per counter complaint, at about 3.00 p.m on 21.10.2025, when the accused person in Crime No.307 of 2025 were inside their house, the defacto complainant in Crime No.307 of 2025 is said to have called out them and abused them with obscene words and threatened them to commit murder. When it was confronted, there was a mutual attack and in which the lady got injured and it was threatened that the common lane should not be used and no Court proceedings should be initiated in this regard. This F.I.R has also culminated in filing of a charge sheet and the same is taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri in C.C.No.528 of 2025.
4. A perusal of both the charge sheets reveal that the investigation officer is one and the same. The charge sheet in C.C.No.528 of 2025 has been filed on 11.11.2025.The charge sheet in S.T.No.983 of 2025 has been filed on 14.11.2025. A prima facie reading of both the charge sheets reveal that they are rival versions of the same incident. The Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri has taken cognizance of both the final report.
(B).Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side:
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Full Bench decision of this Court reported in (2024) 3 MLJ (Crl) 458 (T. Balaji and another Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai and another) has not been followed either by the investigating officer at the time of filing of the final report or by the Court at the time of taking cognizance. He further submitted that when there are rival versions of the same incident, the investigation officer should have found out who is the real aggressor.
6. According to the petitioners, the real aggressor is the defacto complainant/second respondent in the present case and therefore, the F.I.R in Crime No.307 of 2025 should have been closed as mistake of fact and he should have filed a charge sheet only in Crime No.306 of 2025. He extensively relied upon paragraph No.58 of the Full Bench Judgment cited supra wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court were pleased to issue various guidelines to the investigation officers as well as the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that PSO 566 has not been followed by the investigation officer. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the charge sheet.
7. The second respondent/defacto complainant was served through Court on 18.02.2026 but there is no appearance either in person or through counsel.
8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respon
