Allowed

K.Velayutham, M/56, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Oct 2017CRL OP/22731/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the police to process a complaint kept in abeyance. The court mandated that the complaint be forwarded for the Station House Officer to either register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed or conduct a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days if it is not.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to provide copy of complaint to Station House Officer; police directed to register FIR or conduct preliminary inquiry within 15 days; disclosure report must be furnished within one

K.Velayutham, M/56, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.10.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.22731 of 2017
K.Velayutham ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Koyambedu Police Station,
Chennai.
... Respondent/Complainant

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register the case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 19.06.2017 to investigate the same and to file file report in accordance with law.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. C.K.M.Appaji
For Respondent : Mr. P.Govindarajan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶9

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the

¶10

respondent to register the complaint dated 19.06.2017.

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 19.06.2017 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.

¶15

The respondent is not justified in having received the

¶16

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.

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 19.06.2017 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.

¶20

1)If the information received by the respondent

¶21

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

¶22

2) If an information received does not disclose a

¶23

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

¶24

shall be completed within a period of fifteen days from the date of information.

¶25

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

¶26

already registered or closed.

¶27

4) If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the

¶28

complaint, the disclosure report must be recorded

¶29

along with the reasonings and a copy of the same

¶30

shall be furnished to the complainant within one

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

week.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

smi

5) All information relating to cognizable

¶37

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

¶38

police station.

¶39

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions. 26.10.2017 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No smi

¶40

¶41

The Inspector of Police, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai.

¶42

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.22731 of 2017

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Velayutham, M/56, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Velayutham, M/56, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Chinnakolanthaiyammal Vs The District Collector

Sasi @ Sasikala, (50 Years) Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Arul Raj, M/a 40 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Rajagopal, M/57 Years Vs the State Rep.by

Meenakshi, F/A-31 Yrs Vs the District Superintendent of

P.Thankarasu, 55 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police