Allowed

M.M.Syed Sikanthar, M/a 39 Yrs v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Sept 2017CRL OP/10612/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the Inspector of Police to register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry within seven days for a complaint alleging a cognizable offence, citing Lalita Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Directed to register FIR immediately or conduct preliminary inquiry within 7 days and furnish disclosure report within one week.

M.M.Syed Sikanthar, M/a 39 Yrs Vs the Inspector of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.10612 of 2017
M.M.Syed Sikanthar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
D.2, Annasalai Police Station,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch,
Veppery, Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent herein viz the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Veppery, Chennai – 600 007 to register a case against the culprit on the complaint given by him on 27.11.2015 to the 1^st respondent herein.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.N.Dhurga Sha For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

respondent herein viz the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Veppery, Chennai – 600 007 to register a case against the culprit on the complaint given by him on 27.11.2015 to the 1^st respondent herein.

¶14

2.By consent of both sides, this Criminal Original Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 27.11.2015 to the 1^st respondent , the same has been kept in abeyance without any action. It is well settled in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2013 (6) CTC 353], that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if an information furnished to the police officer disclose commission of a cognizable offence and in

¶16

cases where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶17

The respondent is not justified in having received the complaint and keeping it unattended without any further action. In

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

view of the same, the petitioner has made out a case for this Court to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, the respondents are directed as follows:

¶21

1)If the information received by the respondents discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶22

2)If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the respondents shall conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed therein or not and such inquiry shall be completed within a period of seven days from the date of information.

¶23

3) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a

¶24

cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, if not already registered or closed.

¶25

4) If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the disclosure report must be recorded along with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be furnished to the complainant within one week.

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J,

cgi

5)All information relating to cognizable offences whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading an inquiry must be reflected in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the respondent's police station.

¶31

5.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with
the above directions.
20.09.2017
Index:Yes/No
cgi/rm
To

¶32

The Inspector of Police, D.2, Annasalai Police Station, Chennai – 600 002.

¶33

The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Veppery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶34

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.10612 of 2017

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.M.Syed Sikanthar, M/a 39 Yrs v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Syed Sikanthar, M/a 39 Yrs v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikandan, Aged 32 Yrs Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kanmani, Aged 42 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Usharani, Aged 35 Yrs Vs the Superintendent of Police

M/S. Vgp Finances Limited, Vs the Deputy Registrar of

C.Elangovan Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Muthuvel, Vs the Insepctor of Police