Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
A.Lakshmanan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.14178 & 22671 of 2024|C.C.No.69 of 2024|C.C.No.43 of 2024|Crime No.191 of 2023|Crime No.190 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.P.Krishna Doss, Mr.K.N.Thampi
For the Respondents:Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
Clarified guidelines for police investigations involving rival narratives are essential to maintain justice and accountability in law enforcement.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 173(4), 175(3) - Police Standing Order 566 - Two rival FIRs in respect of same occurrence due to prior enmity regarding land dispute - Allegations involved mutual attacks - Guidelines for handling cases in counter defined - The need for thorough investigation to arrive at truth when two FIRs are lodged is emphasized - Failure to assign proper reasons for filing final reports noted. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Quashing of final reports under Section 528 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Court quashed both final reports in light of not adhering to established guidelines for investigation and report filing. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Criminal Original Petitions arose from two FIRs concerning the same incident of violence that took place on 21.09.2023, resulting from a land dispute between two groups.
Findings of Court:
The absence of adherence to guidelines has rendered both final reports invalid.
Issues: The court addressed the necessity of adherence to guidelines for investigating FIRs stemming from rival narratives in the same incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that the investigating officer must investigate both versions thoroughly and cannot file inconsistent final reports without establishing a clear aggressor or the falsity of either version.
Result: Both Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the final reports are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. need for a clear understanding of rival firs. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 2. importance of strict adherence to investigative guidelines. (Para 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 3. court's role in scrutinizing police reports for consistency. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. conclusion on the quashing of final reports. (Para 13 , 14) |
C O M M O N O R D E R
These Criminal Original Petitions impugn two final reports, which arose out of FIRs lodged by two rival parties in respect of the same occurrence.
2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14178 of 2024 seeks to quash the final report in C.C.No.69 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District, which arose out of the FIR in Crime No.191 of 2023.
3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22671 of 2024 seek to quash the final report in C.C.No.43 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District, which arose out of the FIR in Crime No.190 of 2023.
4. The allegations in both cases are that on 21.09.2023, at around 5:00 p.m., the accused, on account of prior enmity regarding a land dispute between the defacto complainant in Crime No.190 of 2023 and the husband of the defacto complainant in Crime No.191 of 2023, attacked each other with hands, iron rods, and wooden logs and thus committed the offences.
5. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14178 of 2024 [Crime No.191 of 2023] are punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
6. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22671 of 2024 [Crime No.190 of 2023] are punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7. The defacto complainant in C.C.No.69 of 2024 is the first accused in C.C.No.43 of 2024, which is impugned in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 22671 of 2024, and her son is the second accused in the said C.C. Similarly, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.43 of 2024 is the accused in C.C.No.69 of 2024, which is impugned in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14178 of 2024.
8. The learned counsel on either side would submit that the allegations in both final reports relate to the same occurrence, which is said to have taken place on 21.09.2023, at around 5:00 p.m.; and that the first respondent police filed the final reports in both FIRs treating them as true versions.
9. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent. He would confirm that both cases arose out of the same incident.
10. Police Standing Order 566 reads as follows:
“566. Investigation to be impartial – (1)
Investigating officers are warned against prematurely committing themselves to any view of the facts for, or against a person. The aim of an investigating officer should be to find out the truth, and, to achieve this purpose, it is necessary to preserve an open mind throughout the Inquiry.
(2) Charge-sheets in cases and counter cases.- In a complaint and counter complaint obviously arising out of the same transaction, the investigating officer should enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses viz., (1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors or (2) to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue. He should place before the court a definite case which he asks it to accept. The investigating officer in such cases should not accept into one complaint and examine only witnesses who support it and give no explanation at all for the injuries caused to the other side. It is his duty to exhibit the counter-complaint in the court and also to prove medical certificates of persons wounded on the opposite side. The truth in these cases is invariably not in strict conformity with either complaint and it is quite necessary that all the facts are placed before the court to enable it to arrive at the truth and just decision. (3) If the Investi
