No Legal Bar In Registering Two FIRs In A Case & Counter-Case Arising From Rival Versions Of Same Incident; IO Must Investigate Both Versions: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has observed that there is no legal bar to registering two FIRs for a case and counter-case arising from rival versions of the same incident, and the Investigating Officer must thoroughly investigate both versions.

In that context, the Bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice M Nirmal Kumar and Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that, "There is no legal bar in registering two FIR’s in a case and a counter case arising out of rival versions of the same incident. Where rival versions are preferred an FIR may be registered for the rival complaints and the investigation officer is required to thoroughly investigate both rival versions by keeping in mind PSO 566".

In this case, the Full Bench had to decide whether the police must strictly follow the procedure outlined in Police Standing Order (PSO) 566 during the investigation of a case and its counter-case, and what the consequences would be if they did not.

Notably, PSO 566 requires that when a complaint and counter-complaint arise from the same incident, the investigating officer must investigate both and determine which party was the aggressor. The officer should then either charge the aggressor or, if both cases seem untrue, refer both cases. The police are expected to identify the actual aggressor and file a final report against that person alone.

The Court established detailed guidelines for handling cases and counter-cases involving rival complaints from the same incident. It stated that two FIRs could be registered in such situations, and the Investigating Officer (IO) must investigate both versions impartially, following Police Standing Order (PSO) 566. If only one FIR is registered, the aggrieved party can seek redress by approaching a superior police officer or the Magistrate. Upon completing the investigation, the IO is required to file a final report against the real aggressor, if one version is found true and the other false. In cases where both parties are found to have committed offenses, separate final reports should be filed for each, but only after careful consideration. The Court emphasized that the term "charge sheet" should be replaced with "final report" in compliance with current legal terminology.

For cases involving factious rioting or communal clashes, the IO must follow PSO 703(i) to conduct a thorough investigation and identify the primary aggressor, with filing two final reports being reserved for situations where both parties have acted lawlessly. Additionally, at the pre-cognizance stage, Magistrates are to ensure that complainants have exhausted avenues with superior police officers before proceeding under the relevant sections of the BNSS 2023. If final reports present inconsistent versions of the same incident, Magistrates should return them to the IO for further clarification.

Subsequently, the Court came to the following conclusions:

a. The police are required to mandatorily follow the procedure prescribed in PSO 566 while investigating a case and case in counter ie., rival versions of the same incident.

b. The consequences of non-compliance with PSO 566 would depend upon the stage at which such an objection is raised. It is the duty of the Magistrate to screen out final reports which are filed in inconsistent rival versions of the same incident ie., where one rival version is true the other must be necessarily false, by returning with a direction to follow PSO 566. Where the Magistrate inadvertently takes cognizance, the error may be set right by the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 if the same is raised at an early stage. If, however, the trial in such cases is allowed to go on and has reached an advanced stage, a plea of non-compliance with the PSO will not ipso facto vitiate trial unless and until a demonstrable case of prejudice or miscarriage is made out.

c. The police will take note of and scrupulously follow the guidelines set out..

d. Trial of a case and counter case shall be held simultaneously before the same Court and the guidelines shall be followed. 

Cause Title: T Balaji & Anr. vs The State & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment