Allowed

G.Chandrasekaran (M/51) v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Sept 2017CRL OP/20029/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on Lalita Kumari. The Court directed the police to register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry within seven days if the 2017 complaint disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 154 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to register FIR or conduct inquiry within seven days and record disclosure reasons with a copy to the petitioner within one week; station diary entries also directed.

G.Chandrasekaran (M/51) Vs the Superintendent of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20029 of 2017
G. Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police
District Police Office,
Krishnakiri,
Krishnakiri District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Hosur Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnakiri District.
... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.05.2017 investigate the same and file final report before the appropriate court in accordance with law within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Munusamy For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to

¶13

¶14

10.05.2017.

¶15

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

¶16

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given

¶17

by him on 10.05.2017 to the respondents, the same has been kept in abeyance without any action. It is well settled in the judgment of the

¶18

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

¶19

under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if an information furnished to the police officer disclose commission of a cognizable offence

¶20

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

¶21

The respondents are not justified in having received the

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

complaint and keeping it unattended without any further action. In 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,

¶25

the respondents are directed as follows:

¶26

discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the

¶27

same shall be forthwith registered.

¶28

cognizable offence, the respondents shall conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed therein or not and such inquiry shall be

¶29

completed within a period of seven days from the date of information.

¶30

cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, if not

¶31

already registered or closed.

¶32

complaint, the disclosure report must be recorded along

¶33

with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be

¶34

furnished to the complainant within one week.

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J,

dpq

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 respondents police station.
5. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the
above directions.
21.09.2017
Index:Yes/No
dpq
To
1. The Superintendent of Police
District Police Office,
Krishnakiri,
Krishnakiri District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Hosur Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnakiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

¶42

High Court, Madras.

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.20029 of 2017

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

G.Chandrasekaran (M/51) v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Chandrasekaran (M/51) v. the Superintendent 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

D.Thirunavukkarasu, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Senthamilan, Aged 25 Years, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ark.Shanmugam Vs the Commissioner of Police

Roshan Kuruvilla Thomas Vs Arihant Invesments by

N. Sivanesan, Vs the State Rep. by Inspector

Raman, S/o.Sarangan Vs The Principal Secretary