(Prayer in Crl.OP(MD).No.7376 of 2026:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying this Court to call for records pertaining to CC No.599/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court-1, Karur and Quash the same as illegal in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

In Crl.OP(MD).No.12450 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in C.C.No.598 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioner is concerned.)

Common Order

1. Crl.OP(MD).No.7376 of 2026 has been filed by the first accused in C.C.No.599 of 2025, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, seeking to quash the charge sheet under which he stands charged with offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 325 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Crl.OP(MD).No.12450 of 2026 has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.598 of 2025, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, under which the petitioners stand charged with offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 379, 506(i), 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(A).Factual Matrix:

3. A perusal of the charge sheet in C.C.No.598 of 2025 discloses that it arises out of Crime No.495 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police, whereas C.C.No.599 of 2025 arises out of Crime No.350 of 2019 on the file of the same police station. According to the First Information Report in Crime No.495 of 2019, the occurrence took place at 5.00 p.m. on 29.05.2019, while according to the First Information Report in Crime No.350 of 2019, the occurrence took place at 6.00 p.m. on the same day. The accused in Crime No.350 of 2019 had earlier preferred Crl.OP(MD).No.17652 of 2022, seeking to quash C.C.No.49 of 2020, which now stands renumbered as C.C.No.599 of 2025 consequent upon further investigation. That petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.02.2023.

4. The relevant portion in Paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 are extracted as follows:

                     “5.I therefore direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, to return the final report to the investigation officer. C.C.No.49 of 2020 will stand terminated. Investigation in both the First Information Reports will be taken by one investigation officer. Thiru.Marappan is the Bar President. I do not cast any aspersion on his integrity. However, the learned counsel for the Saravana Kumar states that considering the status of Thiru. Marappan, the petitioner has genuine apprehension that if the jurisdictional police conducts the investigation, it may not be fair or impartial.

                     6.Without upholding or accepting the said contention, I direct the Deputy Inspector General of police to entrust the investigation in the hands of any other investigation officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.The officer to be entrusted to the investigation shall not be from Karur District. Such a proceeding will be issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The investigation officer will bear in mind the mandate of PSO 566 and file the final reports.

                     7.The learned counsel appearing for Thiru.Marappan states that they would withdraw Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2714 of 2023.

                     8.The final report filed in Cr.No.495 of 2019 is scrapped. The final report filed in Cr.No.350 of 2019 is also scrapped. The Criminal Original Petition, Criminal miscellaneous petition and the Contempt petition are disposed of accordingly.”

5. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that both crime numbers arise out of a case and counter case. This Court scrapped the final reports filed in both cases and directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police to appoint an investigating officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to file fresh final reports, bearing in mind the mandate of PSO 566. It is therefore evident that this Court has already recorded a finding that the two crime numbers constitute a case and counter case, and that order has not been put in issue by either party. The reinvestigation was accordingly conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and two separate final reports came to be filed by the same investigating officer in respect of both crime numbers. Both charge sheets were taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur on 26.05.2026, and both are now assailed by the respective accused in these petitions.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD).No. 12450 of 2026 submitted that although the charge sheet alleges that the second accused snatched a chain from the de facto complainant, and although Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been invoked, no recovery whatsoever has been effected. He contended that no such incident took place at all. He further submitted that the petitioners lodged a complaint on the very date of the occurrence, namely 29.05.2019, upon which Crime No.350 of 2019 came to be registered, whereas the counter complaint was registered only on 14.08.2019 in Crime No.495 of 2019. According to him, this delay in lodging the counter complaint is by itself sufficient to demonstrate that the case of the prosecution is false.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the wound certificates of the petitioners establish that they sustained grievous injuries, and that the de facto complainant in Crl.OP(MD).No.12450 of 2026 was in truth the real aggressor. He also relied upon the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties to contend that they had reconciled and that no further action was proposed to be initiated. He submitted that notwithstanding the specific direction of this Court to follow PSO 566, the same has not been adhered to.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant in Crl.OP(MD).No.12450 of 2026 submitted that the statements of one Manivasagam and one Kandasamy recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure attribute specific overt acts to the petitioners. He submitted that the chain remains missing and has not so far been recovered by the police, and that the de facto complainant proposes to file a protest petition. He further pointed out that both the snatching of the chain and the confinement of the de facto complainant within the police station are spoken to in the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from several of the listed witnesses. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of Crl.OP(MD).No.12450 of 2026.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.OP(MD).No. 7376 of 2026 submitted that the two cases cannot be treated as a case and counter case. He pointed out that the incident in Crime No.495 of 2019 is alleged to have occurred at 5.00 p.m., whereas the incident in Crime No.350 of 2019 is alleged to have occurred at 6.00 p.m., and contended that they can only be construed as sequential events and not as a case and counter case. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. He contended that once the chain had been snatched from him, the petitioner was entitled to exercise the right of private defence contemplated under Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the petitioner was attacked by the de facto complainant, sustained injuries and had his chain snatched; that the de facto complainant, being an Advocate and the Bar President, was able to have a First Information Report registered immediately; and that the petitioner was constrained to move an application before the Court, upon whose direction a First Information Report came to be registered against the de facto complainant. The delay in registration of that First Information Report cannot therefore be urged as a ground for quashing the charge sheet. He submitted that the petitioner is in truth the victim and the de facto complainant the real aggressor, and that no charge sheet ought to have been laid against the petitioner. He accordingly prayed for the charge sheet to be quashed.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant in Crl.OP(MD).No.7376 of 2026 submitted that the de facto complainant sustained injuries, as is borne out by the medical records, and that the points raised by the petitioner are matters for trial. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

12. By its order dated 09.02.2023 in Crl.OP(MD).No.17652 of 2022, this Court categorically found that Crime No.350 of 2019 and Crime No.495 of 2019 constitute a “case and counter case”. This Court also directed the investigating officer to follow the mandate of PSO 566 and to file the final reports accordingly.

13. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, in a judgment reported in 2024 (2) MWN (Cr.) 497 (FB), has laid down the following propositions, in so far as they are relevant to these petitions:

                     58(A)(b)(v): Where after a thorough investigation he is unable to find the real aggressor or where both parties are aggressors and have exceeded the bounds of the law and committed independent offences against each other, he may file a final report in each of the cases. For the sake of clarity, we repeat that these are cases which are not inconsistent with each other. They are no doubt rival versions of the same incident but are cases where both parties are found to have acted lawlessly or committed acts of aggression. It is not necessary for the IO to obtain an opinion from the Public Prosecutor before filing two final reports in such cases. However, the IO must assign proper reasons indicating the factual reasons for filing two final reports in such cases.

                     58(B)(a)(iv) and (v): Where two final reports are filed in a case and counter case, it is the duty of the Magistrate to scrutinize the final reports carefully. If it is found that the final reports put forward inconsistent rival versions of the same incident (ie., if one version is true the other must necessarily be false), or where it is found that the IO has filed two final reports mechanically without properly investigating and finding out the true aggressor the Magistrate shall return the final reports and direct the IO to come up with a definitive case.

                     v. In rare cases, where such final reports are not screened out at the level of the Magistrate, and cognizance has been inadvertently taken, such orders may be challenged under Section 528 BNSS 2023 in which case the orders of cognizance may be set aside, depending upon the stage of the cases, with a consequential direction to follow PSO 566.”

14. Since this Court had already directed the investigating officer to follow PSO 566, and having regard to the law declared by the Hon’ble Full Bench, the investigating officer was obliged to ascertain who the real aggressor was. Only upon arriving at a finding that both parties were aggressors could he have filed two final reports, and even then he was required to assign proper reasons for doing so. In the present case, however, two final reports have been filed without the investigating officer assigning any reason whatsoever, notwithstanding the express directions of this Court.

15. Equally, as held by the Hon’ble Full Bench, where two final reports are filed before the concerned Court in a case and counter case, the jurisdictional Magistrate is expected to scrutinise the final reports and to return them with a direction to the investigating officer to come forward with a definite case. In the present case, on the contrary, the final reports were accepted and cognizance was taken. It is therefore clear that the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench has not been followed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur while taking cognizance.

16. Admittedly, the trial has not commenced in the present case. This Court therefore has no hesitation in invoking its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the orders taking cognizance in both cases.

(C).Conclusion:

17. In view of the foregoing deliberations, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:

(a) The orders taking cognizance in C.C.Nos.598 and 599 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur are set aside.

(b) There shall be a direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur to return the final reports and to direct the investigating officer to strictly follow PSO 566, the directions issued by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the judgment reported in 2024 (2) MWN (Cr.) 497 (FB) (T.Balaji and another Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai and another), and the order of this Court dated 09.02.2023 in Crl.OP(MD).No.17652 of 2022 (R.Saravana Kumar and others Vs. The Inspector of Police, B-1, Karur Town Police Station and another), passed between the same parties.

(c) With the above observations, these Criminal Original Petitions stand disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.