Allowed

G.Murugan, M/A.50 Years v. the District Superintendent of

Madras HC9 Feb 2018CRL OP/3098/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the second respondent police station to register a case based on the petitioner's compliant dated 17.06.2016. The court allowed the petition and issued mandatory directions regarding FIR registration, preliminary inquiry timelines, and documentation of cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed with directions to second respondent to register FIR if offence disclosed or conduct inquiry within fifteen days if not.

G.Murugan, M/A.50 Years Vs the District… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3098 of 2018

¶6

G.Murugan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The District Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Inspector Of Police,
Papparapatti Police Station,
Pennagaram Taluk,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's compliant dated 17.06.2016 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Thenrajan For Respondents : Ms.Kritika Kamal.P Government Advocate(Crl.Side) ORDER

¶10

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's compliant dated 17.06.2016 .

¶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 17.06.2016 to the first 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

¶13

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

¶14

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 second 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.

¶16

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 17.06.2018 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.

¶17

If the information received by the 2nd respondent

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶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 2nd respondent's police station.

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶25

//True copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The District Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶31

2.The Inspector Of Police, Papparapatti Police Station, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶32

3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.K.Thenrajan, Advocate SR.No.10367
Crl.O.P.No.3098 of 2018
LRS(CO)
GN(26/02/2018)

¶33

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

G.Murugan, M/A.50 Years v. the District Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Murugan, M/A.50 Years v. the District 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

K.Narendran Vs P.Indira

Shanmugaraja, M/A.48 Yrs Vs the Commissioner of Police

N.Kannan Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Gopal, M/65 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

P.J.Aadhithan Vs the State Rep by

R.Kannima, Vs the State Rep. by