Allowed

K. Sudha, 47 Yrs, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC30 Oct 2017CRL OP/22913/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to register a complaint as an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry. The Court allowed the petition, directing the police to strictly adhere to statutory timelines for registration, inquiry, and reporting based on whether a cognizable offence was disclosed.

What did the court decide?

Direct the second respondent to register the complaint forthwith if it discloses a cognizable offence, or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days and submit a disclosure report within one week if

K. Sudha, 47 Yrs, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 30.10.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.22913 of 2017
K.Sudha ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 7.
2. The Inspector of Police,
K3, Amjikarai Police Station,
Amjikarai, Chennai-29. ...Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent police to register the complaint dated 27.06.2016 made by the petitioner.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second

¶12

respondent to register the complaint dated 27.06.2016.

¶13

By consent of both sides, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

taken up for final disposal.

¶17

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by her on 27.06.2016 to the second 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.

¶18

The second respondent is not justified in having received

¶19

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

¶20

Criminal Procedure Code.

¶21

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

¶22

complaint dated 27.06.2016 to the Station House Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the issue. On receipt of the said copy of

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

the complaint, the concerned Station House Officer shall adhere to the following directions.

¶26

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

¶27

2)If an information received does not disclose a

¶28

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.

¶29

cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, if not already registered or closed.

¶30

4) If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the

¶31

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.

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH, J.

rts/smi

5)All information relating to cognizable offences

¶37

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. 6. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions. 30.10.2017 rts/smi Note :- Issue on 31.10.2017

¶38

¶39

The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai – 7.

¶40

The Inspector of Police, K3, Amjikarai Police Station, Amjikarai, Chennai-29.

¶41

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.22913 of 2017

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

K. Sudha, 47 Yrs, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sudha, 47 Yrs, v. the Commissioner 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

S.Varadarajan Vs the Commissioner of Police

Mr.Gandhi, M/A.63 Years Vs the State Rep. by

N.Nagaraj, M/a 56 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.S. Vivekanandhan, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Surekha Kothari Vs M/S.Shakthi Industrial

M.Dhamodhara Krishnan, Vs the Inspector of Police