Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.Pugalendhi, J
Arulraj – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai, Dindigul District – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10994 of 2025|Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Lawrance
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate(Crl.side)
The court affirmed that investigations must adhere to prescribed procedural guidelines in case and counter cases, without prejudicing the merits of either party's claims.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 7 - Guidelines for investigation - Police required to follow the prescribed procedure in rival versions of the same incident - Cases registered against both parties based on complaints - Court emphasized that the investigation should be conducted as per guidelines. (Paras 5, 9, 10)
(B) Investigation - The absence of favorable evidence for one party does not undermine the other party's claims - The trial should determine the real aggressor based on the evidence presented. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, A1 & A2, sought to quash proceedings based on a counter complaint after a mutual altercation. Injuries to both parties were contested, and complaints were filed as case and counter case.
Findings of Court:
Court observed both parties engaged in mutual aggression and the police followed proper procedure in filing charges, thus no basis for quashing the proceedings.
Issues: The key issue revolved around whether the police duly investigated and followed the guidelines set forth for such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the investigation did not violate laid down protocols, asserting that both final reports were valid and must proceed to trial to determine true aggressors.
Result: Criminal original petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial introduction of parties and context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. submission regarding counter complaints and injuries. (Para 3) |
| 3. discussion on investigation and complaint validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial emphasis on adherence to procedural guidelines. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final ruling on dismissal of the petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER
The petitioners, who are A1 & A2 in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC/ST Cases, Dindigul, have filed this petition to quash the said proceedings.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the third respondent is the aggressor and he assaulted the first petitioner and he suffered head injury and admitted in the hospital and a case in Cr.No. 261 of 2022 has been registered as against the third respondent. However, a counter complaint has been given by the third respondent as against the petitioners and final report has also been filed and the same is pending in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC/ST Cases, Dindigul. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent Police has not conducted the investigation in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.4587 of 2023 and etc batch dated 08.08.2024, in dealing with the cases, which are registered as case and case in counter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the final report has been filed in a mechanical manner by colluding with the third respondent. Further, he submits that the first petitioner has suffered severe injury at the hands of the third respondent, however, suppressing the nature of the injury suffered by the first petitioner, a case has been registered as against the petitioners.
3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the third respondent submits that the third respondent has also suffered grievous injuries at the hands of the petitioners. Apart from the third respondent, yet another person has also sustained simple injuries and based on the complaint of the third respondent, a case in Cr.No.262 of 2022 came to be registered. The victim in this case belongs to Schedule Caste and the accused belongs to backward community and there is an intention based on the community also and hence, they have registered the case for the offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST Act and final report has also been filed. Further, he submits that the first petitioner's complaint has also been enquired and final report has been filed as against the third respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai in PRC.No.3 of 2025. Since the victims in both cases have suffered grievous injuries, the respondent Police treated both of them as aggressors and filed the final report as against both the parties. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), there is no violation of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Full Bench of in Crl.O.P.Nos.4587 of 2023 and etc batch dated
08.08.2024.
4.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records.
5.The main contention of the petitioners is that cases in Cr.Nos.261 & 262 of 2022 were registered for the very same incident as case and case in counter. However, investigation has not been conducted as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court and that the respondent Police registered the case as against the third respondent, without verifying the nature of the injuries suffered by the first petitioner, in the course of incident and the witnesses in the present case have not stated about the injuries suffered by the third respondent and therefore, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
6.It appears that for the very same incident, on the complaint of the both parties, case and case in counter came to be registered. Since both the parties are aggressors, final report came to be file
