Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court emphasized the duty of investigating officers to conduct investigations impartially and ensure the genuineness of complaints. Justice B. Pugalendhi underscored that the government’s motto, “Truth alone triumphs,” places a responsibility on government servants, including police officers, to uphold this principle in their duties. The case at hand involved a plea to quash criminal proceedings against individuals accused of illegally harvesting crops planted by the de facto complainant. The court’s decision highlighted the importance of fair investigation practices in the justice system.

The case, Kanthavel and Others v State [CRL.O.P (MD) No.5955 of 2024], centered around a dispute where the petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated for the alleged illegal harvesting of crops. The de facto complainant accused the petitioner of harvesting crops that he had planted on land he owned. The petitioner argued that the police had improperly registered a case for what was essentially a civil dispute.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Mr. R.J. Karthick, representing the petitioner, contended that the criminal proceedings initiated against his client were unwarranted as the matter was purely civil in nature. He argued that the police had overstepped their jurisdiction by registering a criminal case for a dispute over the harvesting of crops. According to the petitioner, the allegations did not constitute a criminal offense and should be resolved through civil litigation. The counsel emphasized that the intervention of the criminal justice system in this matter was inappropriate and sought the quashing of the FIR.

Mr. P. Kottai Chamy, the Government Advocate (Crl. side), and Mr. R. Alagumani, representing the State, argued that although the dispute had civil elements, the nature of the complaint involved criminal actions. They pointed out that the petitioner had illegally harvested crops that were planted and raised by the de facto complainant. The respondent’s counsel emphasized that the land on which the crops were planted belonged to the complainant, thus making the unauthorized harvesting a criminal act. They maintained that the police were justified in registering the complaint as an FIR and conducting a criminal investigation to ascertain the facts and ensure justice.

The de facto complainant reiterated that the land in question belonged to him and that the crops were planted by him. He asserted that the petitioner had no legal right to cultivate or harvest the crops. The complainant underscored the necessity of the criminal proceedings to address the illegal actions of the petitioner and protect his property rights.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice B. Pugalendhi, after considering the arguments presented by both sides, delivered a judgement that reinforced the need for fair and unbiased investigations by police officers. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns regarding the civil nature of the dispute but noted that the complaint also had criminal elements that warranted investigation.

The court emphasized that the role of the investigating officer is crucial in determining the truthfulness of the complaint. Justice Pugalendhi remarked, “The motto of the government in its emblem is Truth Alone Triumphs and therefore, it is the responsibility of every government servant including the investigating officer to discharge their duty as expected by the government and to ensure Truth alone Triumphs.” The court highlighted that the investigation should be conducted impartially, considering all evidence provided by the parties involved.

The court noted that the case was at the investigation stage, and the points raised by the petitioner could be thoroughly examined by the investigating officer. The First Information Report (FIR), according to the court, merely registers the complaint and initiates the process of investigation to verify the allegations. The court pointed out that the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether the complaint is genuine and supported by evidence.

The court expressed its expectation that the investigating officer would carry out the investigation fairly and expeditiously. It stressed the importance of evaluating the evidence presented by both the complainant and the petitioner. The court granted liberty to the investigating officer to proceed with the investigation, ensuring that it is conducted without bias and in line with legal standards.

The court ultimately disposed of the petition, refusing to quash the criminal proceedings at this stage. The court’s decision underscored the importance of allowing the investigative process to unfold, with a focus on ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the facts. By doing so, the court reaffirmed the principle that the integrity of the investigation process is paramount in upholding justice.