ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in SC.No.133 of 2019 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 323, 506(ii), 307 of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and others are neighbours and relatives of the defacto complainant. There was a previous enmity between the Defacto Complainant and the petitioners with regard to land dispute. On 31.03.2015 at about 7.30 a.m., when the Defacto Complainant was cleaning vessels in front of her house, the Petitioners being armed with sickle and knife, abused the Defacto Complainant with filthy language. Further, the 2nd Petitioner attacked the Defacto Complainant with knife, thereby she sustained cut injuries on her two elbows and there was bleeding. One, Lilly and her son one, Stalin also abused the Defacto Complainant. Thereafter, the said Lilly thrashed the Defacto Complainant and her son pushed down the Defacto Complainant by pulling her hair. The Petitioners by showing sickle and knife threatened the Defacto Complainant with dire consequences stating that if she comes forward to create problem with regard to the land and the channel situated nearby the Petitioners' residence. The Defacto Complainant was admitted by her husband at Government Hospital, Polur for further treatment and she was referred to the Government Hospital, Vellore. Thereafter, a case was registered in Crime No. 112 of 2015 on the file of the first Respondent / police for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 324, 323, 506 (ii), 307 I.P.C r/w Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in SC.No.133 of 2019 by the trial court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that one of the accused in this case filed a counter complaint for the very same occurrence and the same has been registered in crime No.155 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2012. However, without taking any action on the counter complaint, the first respondent completed investigation and filed final report only on the complaint lodged by the second respondent. It is violation of clear violation of the Police Standing Order 588-A.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent / police submitted that in crime No.155 of 2015, already investigation was completed and filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur. However, it was returned for certain compliance.

5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

6. It is seen that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners and as such, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned proceedings. Further, the first respondent / police filed two final reports for the very same occurrence. It is relevant to rely upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Vellapandy Thevar and Others Vs. State reported in 1984 L W (Crl) 257, in which this Court has held that, in case of complaint and counter complaints, the procedure to be followed by the investigating officer is laid down in Order 588A of Madras Police Standing Order. The Investigation Officer has to enquire into both the complaints and find out who were the aggressors and file a charge sheet against them or refer both the cases if he finds them untrue. Where the Investigating Officer find it difficult to choose either of the above courses, he should seek opinion of the Public Prosecutor and act accordingly. The result is there are now two prosecutions in respect of the same occurrence against the opposite parties.

7. On a perusal of the materials available on records, it is evident that in complaint and counter complaints,