Allowed

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

Madras HC2 Feb 2018CRL OP/3005/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking direction to the police to act on a complaint. The Court directed the Station House Officer to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed, or conduct a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days otherwise.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to give a copy of the complaint to the Station House Officer, who was directed to register an FIR, conduct an inquiry, or record a disclosure report as per specified timeli

P.Arunkumr, Aged 27 Years, Vs State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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.3005 of 2018

¶6

P.Arunkumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Thanvanthiri Police Station, Gorimedu, Pondicherry. ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent police to register the complaint on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 27.01.2018 to the respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondent : Mr.D.Bharathachakravarthy Addl. Public Prosecutor (Pondy) O R D E R

¶10

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 27.01.2018.

¶11

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

¶12

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 27.01.2018 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.

¶13

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

¶14

The respondent is 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.

¶15

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 27.01.2018 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the 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.

¶20

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 respondent's police station.

¶21

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

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Sub Inspector of Police, Thanvanthiri Police Station, Gorimedu, Pondicherry.

¶29

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.G.punniyakotti, Advocate, S.R.No.7786

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.3005 of 2018

¶32

RRK(07/02/2018)

¶33

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

D.Stalin Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Chellapandi Vs State Represented by

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