V.R. Ranganathan and others vs State

Singaravelu, J.—The accused in C.C. No. 4348 of 1984 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, have filed this petition u/s

482, Crl.P.C., to quash the proceedings.

It is common ground that there is a counter case in which these Petitioners (accused) are cited as witness. Both cases are for alleged offences

u/s 341 and 323 Indian Penal Code. According to the Petitioners the prosecution ought to have investigated on any one of the complaints and filed

the charge sheet on the real aggressors and referred the other complaint. In other words, it is urged that since both the complaints arise out of the

same transaction, the prosecution erred in filing two reports without properly investigating and finding out the real aggressors. In support of this

contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioners drew my attention to a judgment of Kader, J., reported in Vellapandy Thevar v. State 1984 L.W.

(Crl.) 257, which says that in cases of complaints and counter-complaints, the procedure to be followed by the investigating officer is laid down in

P.S.O. 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders and that the investigating officer has to enquire into both the complaints, find out who were

the aggressors and file a charge-sheet against them or refer both the cases if he finds them untrue and that, where the investigating officer finds it

difficult to choose either of the above course, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and act accordingly. The learned Judge held that

the investigating officer had contravened the provision of P.S.O 588-A that in the case of doubt he ought to have referred the matter to the opinion

of the Public prosecutor and act accordingly. Since there were two prosecutions in respect of the same matter the learned Judge held that the

course adopted by the investigating officer was improper and bad in law.

With respect, I am unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge and my reasons are as follows:

Firstly, P.S.O. is not a statute, but only a set of rules framed for the guidance of the investigating officers and therefore, a violation of a Standing

Order in the matter of investigation will not constitute an illogicality .In other words, a defect or an irregularity in investigation, however serious, has

no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to the cognizance of the trial of the offence. While S 190, Crl Procedure Code

provides a police report resulting from investigation as the material on which cognizance is to be taken, it cannot be maintained that a valid and

legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance. In other words, it cannot be said that taking cognizance of

an invalid police report is a nullity. The error, if at all, is only in a proceeding antecedent to a trial and it cannot therefore affect the legality of the

cognizance by the trial that follows. This is the settled law as found in the decision reported in H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. The State of

Delhi, .

The question whether the police officer had or had not applied his mind to the truth or otherwise of the rival versions has to be canvassed and

considered only after the whole evidence is placed before Court. It follows that it is a question of fact and the Petitioners have to await the

evidence and cannot avoid a trial.

Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that in this case the transaction is not one and the same and that the time of occurrence is different from

the other. Of course, this is disputed by the Petitioners (Accused) on the ground that both the cases form part of the same transaction. This is again

a question of fact, namely, whether the transaction is one and the same or different.

The result of my discussion is that a violation of the Police Standing Orders is not by itself a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings and

this is a matter to be decided on the merits of the case after receiving evidence. Consequently, this Court does not find sufficient reason to interfere

u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.

(The stay granted in Crl. M.P. 159 of 1985 is vacated)