Allowed

R.Rajkumar, M/A.27 Years v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Sept 2017CRL OP/20030/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition, the High Court approved the petitioner's complaint and issued directions to the responding police official to register the case or conduct a preliminary inquiry within seven days if a cognizable offence is disclosed.

What did the court decide?

The Respondent Police were directed to register the case or conduct a preliminary inquiry within seven days and provide a disclosure report if the inquiry ends in closing the complaint.

R.Rajkumar, M/A.27 Years Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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.20030 of 2017
R.Rajkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Inspector of Police
Kondalampatty Police Station
Salem
... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register a case based on the complaint dated 18.09.2017 given by the petitioner and investigate the matter in accordance with law.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶9

ORDER This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to register

¶10

a case based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 18.09.2017.

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

for final disposal.

¶15

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

¶16

by him on 18.09.2017 to the respondent, the same has been kept in abeyance without any action. It is well settled in the judgment of the

¶17

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 cases where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence,

¶18

a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶19

The respondent is not justified in having received the complaint

¶20

and keeping it unattended without any further action. In view of the same,

¶21

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 respondent is directed as follows:

¶22

1)If the information received by the respondent

¶23

discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

same shall be forthwith registered.

¶27

2)If an information received does not disclose a

¶28

cognizable offence, the respondent shall conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether cognizable offence

¶29

is disclosed therein or not and such inquiry shall be completed within a period of seven days from the date of

¶30

information.

¶31

3) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a

¶32

cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, if not

¶33

already registered or closed.

¶34

4) If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the disclosure report must be recorded along

¶35

with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be

¶36

furnished to the complainant within one week.

¶37

5)All information relating to cognizable offences

¶38

whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading an

¶39

inquiry must be reflected in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the respondent police station.

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J,

dpq

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the

¶45

above directions.
21.09.2017
Index:Yes/No
dpq
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Kondalampatty Police Station
Salem
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.20030 of 2017

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Rajkumar, M/A.27 Years v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajkumar, M/A.27 Years 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

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