1. Whether police must mandatorily follow PSO 566 while investigating case and counter case, with conflicting precedents on its legal force and effect of non-compliance on prosecution. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 25038
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran, Mr. Justice M.Nirmal Kumar, Mr. Justice N.Anand Venkatesh, JJ
T.BALAJI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE and Another – Respondent
Crl OP 4587 of 2024
PSO 566 is mandatory for police investigations of rival cases, ensuring thoroughness and impartiality to prevent conflicting outcomes.
Headnote:
Police - Case and Counter Case - Police Standing Order 566 - The court mandates adherence to PSO 566 during investigations of rival cases, emphasizing the need for thorough and impartial investigations to avoid conflicting reports and ensure justice.
Fact of the Case:
The court examined the procedural requirements for investigating cases and counter cases, particularly focusing on Police Standing Order 566, which mandates that police must investigate both sides of a complaint arising from the same incident to determine the real aggressor.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that PSO 566 is mandatory and must be followed by police during investigations of cases and counter cases. Non-compliance may not automatically vitiate the prosecution unless it results in a miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The key issues included whether PSO 566 is mandatory, the consequences of non-compliance, the need for guidelines for investigations, and the procedure for courts when dealing with cases and counter cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that PSO 566, derived from executive power under Article 162, has the force of law and must be adhered to in investigations of rival cases to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure fair trials.
Final Decision: The court affirmed that police must follow PSO 566 in case and counter case investigations.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
constitutional law
-
executive power
- article 162
- force of government orders
-
executive power
-
practice and procedure
- code of criminal procedure (Para 2)
- bharatiya nagrik suraksha sanhita
Table of Contents
2. Whether PSO 566 has force of law as mandatory police procedure or is merely directory; whether executive orders under Article 162 can supplement criminal procedure absent legislation. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. What constitutes a case and case-in-counter?
Two rival versions of the same incident where one version must necessarily be false, requiring the investigating officer to determine the aggressor rather than file reports in both cases. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
COMMON ORDER
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
The genre of case and counter-case is not a new phenomenon. In Kautilya’s, Arthasastra cases and counter cases were dealt with only in a limited class of cases like robbery, duel etc., where there was a possibility of aggression on both sides. Kautilya said:
“In cases other than duel, robbery, as well as disputes amongst merchants or trade guilds, the defendant shall file no counter case against the plaintiff, nor can there be any counter case for the defendant.”
Though times have changed since the days of Kautilya, the central focus on the aggressor remains the same. In this reference, we are called upon to examine certain seminal questions relating to a case and counter case and the manner in which Courts and investigation agencies are required to handle them.
2.This Full Bench has been constituted pursuant to an order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice dated 26.03.2024, to answer the following questions of law:
i. Whether the police is required to mandatorily follow the procedure prescribed in Police Standing Order 566 while investigating a case and case in counter?
ii. What is the effect of non-compliance with PSO 566? If and in what circumstances does non-compliance vitiate the prosecution?
iii. If in the event of the Court holding that the procedure provided under PSO 566 is not mandatory, should the Court come up with a set of guidelines to ensure proper investigation in a case and a case-
in-counter?
iv. What is the procedure to be adopted by the Court trying offences in cases where the prosecution files a report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C in both the case and case in counter?
3.The circumstances giving rise to the reference are as follows:
a. When Crl.O.P 3922 of 2024 had come up for hearing before one of us (N.Anand Venkatesh, J) a trend was noticed whereby investigations in a case and a case-in-counter were not being conducted in line with the Police Standing Order No.566 (Old No. 588-A) which required the police to find out the real aggressor and file a final report only against such a person or persons. However, the police were filing final reports in both cases mechanically resulting in the burden being shifted to the Courts to plough through conflicting versions to decide who was the real aggressor.
b. It was also noticed that there were conflicting judgments of single judges on the issue as to whether PSO 588-A had any force of law and whether the investigating officers were enjoined to follow them while investigating a case and case in counter. In Vellapandy Thevar v State (1984 LW Cri 257), S.A Kader, J had quashed a final report for the failure of the investigation officer to follow the mandate of PSO 588-A. However, in V.R Ranganathan v State, T.N Singharavelu,J held that violation of the PSO did not vitiate the order of cognizance. In Pandurangam v State, (1987 LAW Cri 400) Ramalingam, J held that the PSO had no statutory force and that a failure to observe the PSO did not constitute an illegality. A few years later, in Krishnamoorthi v State, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of David Annoussamy and Janarthanam, JJ took a contrary view, without noticing any of the earlier decisions, and issued directions to the police to follow the requirements of PSO 588-A while investigating a case and case-in- counter. The pendulum swung the other way when in Karthikeyan v State, 1992 LW Cri 74, T.S Arunachalam, J held that the PSO had no force of law thereby essentially reiterating the earlier decision of this Court in Pandurangam v State, (1987 LW Cri 400). The attention of Arunachalam, J was unfortunately not drawn to the decision of the Division Bench in Krishnamoorthi v State.
c. After a decade, the pendulum once again swung the other way when a Division Bench of Prabha Sridevan and K.N Basha, JJ in Venthimuthu v State, (2007 2 MLJ Cri 405), reiterated the requirement of the police following PSO-588A and held that the omission to do so had resulted in a perfunctory investigation. However, i
