Allowed

M.Natarajan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Mar 2018CRL OP/20/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a criminal original petition invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The court directed the police Station House Officer to register an FIR if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if it does not.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the complaint to the Station House Officer, who must either register the FIR or complete a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days and furnish a closure

M.Natarajan, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20 of 2018
M.Natarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Office of Thiruvannamalai
District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Chetpet Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4. K.Chinnadurai
5. K.Bharani
6. C.Ravi
(R4 to R6 are impleaded as per the order
of this Court dated 07.02.2018 made in
Crl.M.P.No.1502 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.No.20 of 2018)

¶6

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents to register the complaint dated 22.11.2017 & 31.10.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.Natarajan (Party in Person) For Respondents : Mrs.Kritika Kamal.P Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R1 to R3

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 22.11.2017 & 31.10.2016.

¶10

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

¶11

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 22.11.2017 & 31.10.2016 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.

¶12

The respondents are 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.

¶13

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 22.11.2017 & 31.10.2016 to the Station House 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.

¶14

1)If the information received by the third respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶15

2)If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the third 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.

¶16

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

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the closure report must be recorded along with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be furnished to the complainant within one week.

¶19

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 third respondent's police station.

¶20

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed

¶21

with the above directions.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dh
To
1. The District Collector,
Office of Thiruvannamalai
District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Chetpet Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2ccs to Mr.Natarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.19076

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.20 of 2018

¶24

BR(CO) CS/02/04/18

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Natarajan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Natarajan, v. the District Collector

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.Vijayalakshmi, Aged 65 Years Vs the Commissioner of Police

Jothi, F/a 45 Yrs, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Chitra, F/a 32 Yrs, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Saravanan, Age 34 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Palepalli Sri Gangamman Alaya Vs State Rep. by

Dr.C.Mohan, M/a 69 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its