Crl.O.P. No. 22655 of 2017 allowed by single judge invoking inherent powers to direct police to register FIR or conduct preliminary inquiry within 15 days based on Lalita Kumari principles.
Petitioner directed to give copy of complaint to SHO; SHO to register FIR or conduct inquiry within 15 days if cognizable offence disclosed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
Crl.O.P.No.22655 of 2017
Rajagopal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Shoolagiri Police Station,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register a case
based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated
20.10.2017 against the named persons in the complaint.
For Petitioner : M/s.V.Sakkarapani
For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 20.10.2017.
2.By consent of both sides, this Criminal Original Petition is taken up for final disposal.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 20.10.2017 to the respondents, 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 20.10.2017 to the Station Housing Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the issue. On receipt of the said copy of the complaint, the concerned Station House Officer shall adhere to the following directions.
1)If the information received by the respondents discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.
2)If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the second respondent 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 fifteen days from the date of information.
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 second respondent's police station.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dh/smi
To
Crl.O.P.No.22655 of 2017
SV(CO) CA(10/11/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to direct the respondent police to register a case or conduct a preliminary inquiry based on a complaint kept in abeyance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and othersExplained¶10
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2013 (6) CTC 353]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajagopal
The State rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District.
The Inspector of Police, Shoolagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
M.S.RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
