O R D E R

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashment of charge sheet in P.R.C.No.13 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 341, 354, 326, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC on the ground that both case and counter case have been charged by the police.

2. As per the charge sheet, on 01.12.2020 at about 3:15 p.m., Accused No.1 asked the defacto complainant to meet him at his house. Accordingly, the defacto complainant went to the house of A.1 where all the accused assaulted her with stone, wooden log and iron rod etc. Originally, on a complaint given by her, the police registered CSR.No.

274/2020 on 08.12.2020.

3. Similarly, on a complaint given by the petitioners, a case has been registered in Crime No.597 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and charge sheet is filed against the defacto complainant and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.485 of 2022.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per standing order POS No.566 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders, in case if a complaint and counter complaint are filed in respect of transaction, the same Investigation Officer shall investigate both of the offences and either to charge the accused who are aggressors or refer both of them as untrue.

5. POS No.566(2) of the Police Standing Orders runs as under:-

“(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 in - vestigating 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 a just decision.”

6. The Police Standing Orders clearly makes out the procedure to be followed by the Investigation Officer when two cases have been registered, out of one transaction, the police have to identify who is aggressor and after identifying the aggressor, a case has to be registered against the aggressor and close the case against those who is not an aggressor. In case if the Investigation Officer cannot determine as to who is the aggressor, then both the cases have to be closed. Typically, in this kind of incident, on account of rioting and other related aggravated offences, both the parties will receive injuries. If two FIRs which are registered in respect of one incident as a case and counter case, both the offences have to be investigated by a single Investigation Officer, thereby he will decide as to which one of them was aggressive and which one of them is recessive.

7. Law is also very much settled, this Court while allowing Crl.O.P.33146 of 2021, dated 05.06.2023, has held as follows:-

“8.In the instant case, the said procedure has been violated. This Court in Vellapandy Thevar and Others Vs. State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli Dt., reported in [1984 LW (Crl.) 257]

had held as follows:

4. This is a case of complaint and counter complaint.

On the complaint given by Tmt. Ramasundaram in Cr. No. 64 of 1982, the Inspector of Police has filed a charge sheet in S.C. 132 of 1983 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 324 and 302, Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners in Crl. M.P. 5503 of