Allowed

Nikkath Banu, 27 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Sept 2017CRL OP/20135/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to direct the respondent police station to either register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry within seven days if the petitioner's complaint discloses a cognizable offence, citing Lalita Kumari.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed with directions to register the FIR if cognizable offence is disclosed, or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 7 days if not.

Nikkath Banu, 27 Yrs, 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.20135 of 2017
Nikkath Banu .. Petitioner
Vs.
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police
W-2, All Women Police Station,
Triplicane, Chennai.
.. Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register the complaint given by the petitioner on 21.06.2017 as per the law and to take appropriated legal action by conduction fair enquiry.

¶8

For Petitioner : Dr.V.T.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor. ORDER

¶9

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to register a case based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

dated 21.06.2017.

¶13

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by her on 21.06.2017 to the 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 cases where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶14

The respondent is not justified in having received the 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, the respondent is directed as follows:

¶15

1)If the information received by the respondent

¶16

discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶17

2)If an information received does not disclose a

¶18

cognizable offence, the respondent shall conduct a

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

3) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, if not already registered or closed.

¶23

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.

¶24

5)All information relating to cognizable offences

¶25

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.

¶26

4.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is

¶27

allowed with the above directions.

¶28

21.09.2017

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

¶31

Index:Yes/No rli/dpq

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J,

rli/dpq

To
1. The Inspector of Police
W-2, All Women Police Station,
Triplicane, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.20135 of 2017
21.09.2017

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

Nikkath Banu, 27 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikkath Banu, 27 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

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