The Madras High Court has taken a significant step towards addressing the issue of police filing duplicate cases for a single offense. In a bid to end this trend, the court has framed comprehensive guidelines that need to be followed by law enforcement agencies. A full bench comprising Justice G Jayachandran, Justice M Nirmal Kumar, and Justice N Anand Venkatesh emphasized the importance of adhering to Police Standing Order (PSO) 566, which mandates impartial investigations.
The court clearly outlined the procedures to be followed in cases where conflicting versions of the same incident are presented. If an investigating officer (IO) registers a case based solely on one version and refuses to register a case based on the rival version, the complainant can approach the superior police officer and subsequently the magistrate. In scenarios where the rival versions are contradictory, the IO is bound to present a definitive case and cannot file final reports for both versions.
However, if the investigation reveals that the true aggressor cannot be identified or if both parties are found to be aggressors and have committed independent offenses against each other, the IO may file a final report in each case. In such situations, the court has mandated that the trial and counter case shall be held simultaneously before the same court.
Addressing the consequences of non-compliance with PSO 566, the bench clarified that the level of consequence depends on the stage at which the objection is raised. The magistrate has the duty to screen out final reports filed based on inconsistent rival versions of the same incident and direct the authorities to adhere to PSO 566. If the magistrate inadvertently takes cognizance of such reports, the error can be rectified by the High Court. However, if the trial progresses to an advanced stage, a plea of non-compliance with the PSO will not automatically invalidate the trial unless demonstrable prejudice or miscarriage of justice is proven.
These guidelines mark a significant step towards ensuring fairness and efficiency in criminal investigations. They aim to prevent the unnecessary duplication of legal proceedings and ensure that justice is served in a timely and impartial manner. This decision underscores the commitment of the Madras High Court to upholding the principles of due process and ensuring a fair and equitable justice system for all.
