Ramalakshmi and Others vs State

Padmini Jesudurai, J.—The Petitioners who are accused 6 to 9 in S.T.C. No. 1842 of 1990 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil, for an offence u/s 160 of the Indian Penal Code invoke the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the above proceedings.

The allegation against the Petitioners in that they along with 5 others of ''A'' party and two others of ''B'' party to which they also belong on 14.1.90 at 10 A.M. assaulted each other and were engaged in an affray.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would contend that on behalf of ''A'' party, a complaint had been given in respect of the occurrence and another complaint had been given on behalf of ''B'' party and that the Respondent police ought to have investigated into both the complaints and by following the Police Standing Order No. 588 should have found out who the aggressor was and if that was not possible should have referred both the complaints after consulting the Public Prosecutor. According to the learned Counsel there is an illegality since the Respondent has chosen to charge both the parties. Reliance was placed upon, the decisions in Jaipal v. Sub Inspector of Police, Paramakudi 1989 L.W.Cri. 445.

I am unable to accept the above contention in view of the fact that the offence for which the Petitioners and others have been charged is one u/s 160, I.P.C., which is an affray between the parties. Indian Penal Code contemplates offence of affray, where both parties fight with each other and both parties will have necessarily to be charged. In such a contingency there is no question of either party being an agressor. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relates to a complaint and a counter complaint in which the Police had filed two separate charge sheets for certain offences under the Indian Penal Code and each case was separately taken on file and different trials were about to begin. Under these circumstance, this Court had quashed the proceedings. This is not a case of that type. On the contrary, since both the parties had been fighting with each other and had committed an offence u/s 160, I.P.C., both the parties have been charged u/s 160, I.P.C. I see no illegality in the charge sheet filed. Hence this petition is dismissed.