Allowed

D.Stalin v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC2 Feb 2018CRL OP/2953/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police and SHO to either register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if the complaint lacks cognizable offence details.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to give a copy of the complaint to the SHO; SHO directed to register FIR or conduct inquiry within 15 days.

D.Stalin Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.2953 of 2018

D.Stalin

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram.
2.The Station House Officer,
Valevanur Police Station,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents to register the complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and to make investigation.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jenitha For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate [Crl. Side] ORDER

¶12

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to register the complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and to make investigation.

¶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 24.01.2018 to the 1^st and 2^nd 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.

¶15

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents are not justified in having https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ received the complaint and keeping it unattended without any

¶16

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

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 24.01.2018 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.

¶18

1)If the information received by the 2^nd respondents discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶19

2)If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the 2^nd respondents 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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 2^nd respondent police station.

¶23

In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions.

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.

¶30

2.The Station House Officer, Valevanur Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.2953 of 2018

¶33

+1 cc to MS.K.JENITHA Advocate SR.NO. 7851
RD 17/02/2018

¶34

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

D.Stalin v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Stalin v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

M.Mangaiyarkarasi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

K.Kalaikumaran, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Muruganantham, Aged 56 Years, Vs the State by

Chellapandi Vs State Represented by

P.Arunkumr, Aged 27 Years, Vs State Rep. by

R.Santharaman, M/A.49 Years Vs State Rep by