BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22048 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.18974 and 18977 of 2025

1. Puliyankutty Karupanan

2. Prabhu

3. Thennarasu

4. Suresh

5. Tamil @ Muthaiah

6. Chinna Mannan

7. Kayalvizhi ... Petitioners / Accused No.1 to 7 Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Natham, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.161 of 2022) ... 1^st Respondent /Complainant

2. Karunchamy ... 2^nd Respondent /

Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in connection with the Impugned Charge Sheet in C.C.185 of 2025 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition raises a fundamental issue touching upon the fairness, integrity, and legality of criminal investigation in case and counter-case situations, particularly the mandatory compliance with Police Standing Order No.566 and the consequences of its violation.

2. The present case presents a textbook instance where rival complaints arising out of the same occurrence were investigated by different Investigating Officers, leading to inconsistent final reports and raising serious questions regarding the legality of the investigative process itself.

3. The petitioners seek quashment of the impugned charge sheet primarily on the ground that the investigation is vitiated by violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under PSO 566, as authoritatively interpreted and declared binding by the Full Bench of this Court in T. Balaji v. State¹, which constitutes the governing law on the subject.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR in Crime No.

161 of 2022, is that on 11.05.2022 at about 8.00 a.m., when the second respondent/de facto complainant was present in his agricultural field, the petitioners allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into the land, and assaulted the complainant and his family members using deadly weapons, causing injuries.

5. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.161 of 2022 was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 354, 506(ii), and 326 IPC, corresponding to Sections 191(2), 191(3), 1 2024-2-L.W.(Crl) 175

296(b), 115(2), 74, 351(2), and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

6. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed and taken cognizance by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham, as C.C.No.185 of 2025.

Case of the petitioners:

7. The petitioners contend that the impugned prosecution arises out of the very same occurrence forming the subject matter of Crime No.160 of 2022, which was registered based on the complaint given by the petitioners themselves against the second respondent and others.

8. The said counter-case has also culminated in a final report and is pending trial as C.C.No.186 of 2025 before the very same Magistrate. Thus, it is an admitted position that Crime Nos.160 and 161 of 2022 constitute a case and counter-case arising out of the same transaction.

9. The gravamen of the petitioners’ challenge is that the case and counter-case were investigated by different Investigating Officers, in clear violation of PSO 566 and the binding principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in T. Balaji v. State² Grounds for quash:

10. The petitioners have raised the following principal grounds: (i) Investigation in the case and counter-case by different Investigating Officers is in direct violation of PSO 566.

(ii) Such investigation vitiates the fairness and legality of the investigative process.

(iii) The failure to investigate both cases by the same officer has resulted in mechanical and inconsistent final reports.

(iv) The continuation of prosecution based on