N. Murugan vs State

G. Rajasuria, J.—This petition has been filed to quash in F.I.R. in Cr. No. 277 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent and direct that the investigation in the case to be transferred to the C.B.C.I.D. for fresh investigation.

Heard both sides.

The long and short of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run thus:

The police registered two F.I. Rs. Viz., (i) Cr. No. 276 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C on the complaint given by one C.G. Murugan on the ground that the accused persons attacked him and caused injuries and (ii) Cr. No. 277 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 324, 427 and 307 I.P.C. on the ground that the accused persons barged into his house and attacked him and caused injuries. It so happened that the 3rd Respondent, the Superintendent of Police thought fit to entrust the investigation in Cr. No. 276 of 2010 to one other police officer attached to Sivakasi East Police Station.

At the hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the police completed the investigation in Cr. No. 277 of 2010 and laid the charge sheet, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate returned the same for complying with certain technical defects; that so far, the investigation in Cr. No. 276 of 2010 is still pending; that in the meanwhile, N. Murugan, the defacto complainant in Cr. No. 277 of 2010 filed this original petition airing his grievance to the effect that the police did not examine him and his son, who sustained injuries in the incident and the investigation was not conducted in proper line.

Over and above that the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the nature of the two complaints were as such one and the same, the investigating officer ought to have investigated into it and the Superintendent of Police was not justified in ordering investigation by one other investigating officer in Cr. No. 276 of 2010; as per the police standing orders, whenever, there is a case and case in counter, the same officer is expected to conduct the investigation in both the cases and find out as to who is the aggressor and drop one case and file charge sheet in the other case, where, the person is actually the victim; as such the aggressor in the incident would not be entitled to get the assistance of police, but in this case, the police has not chosen to do so, so far; even though, the Petitioner herein and others happened to be injured, yet they have been arrayed as accused in Cr. No. 276 of 2010.

It is just and necessary to refer to Old Police Standing Order 588 (New P.S.O.566) which is extracted hereunder:

PSO 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 gave no explanation at all for the injuries caused to the other sides. 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.

(3) If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice of either course is difficult, viz., to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the district and act accordingly. A final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law and the complainant or the counter -complainant as the case may be, should be advised about the disposal by a notice in Form No. 90 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the Police.

I also hark back to the following decisions:

(i) Stateof M.P v. Mishrilal reported in 2003 SCC 1829.

(ii) Sudhir and Others etc. Vs. State of M.P. etc., .

(iii) Nathilal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 1990 SCC 638. An excerpt from it, would run thus:

We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other

The police is expected to look into the fact thoroughly and find out as to whether there were two separate incidents involved in the two respective F.I. Rs viz., Cr. Nos. 276 and 277 of 2010 or one and the same incident found projected in both the F.I. Rs. If one and the same incident had taken place and if two F.I. Rs. emerged, then, the police should necessarily resort to the procedure as found set out in the Police Standing Order cited supra. But, on the other hand, if there are evidence to the effect that two separate incidents took place, then the matter would be different. As such, this could be gone into by one and the same investigating officer and not by two different officers and as such, I could see that there is some prima facie mistake committed by the police, warranting interference by this Court.

Furthermore, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was not at all examined and over and above that the other injured persons, who sustained injuries along with him also were not examined.

Considering the proetcontra, the following direction is given:

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range is directed to call for the records of both the cases and in the light of my above observations, consider the same and issue suitable directions by appointing one investigating officer to conduct further investigation in both the matters and do the needful.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would make an extempore submission that his client/the Petitioner herein may be given liberty to make representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police; wherefore, the Petitioner is permitted to do so on receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.