Allowed

R.Karthikeyan, M/a 48 Years, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC5 Feb 2018CRL OP/3240/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition directing the respondent police to act upon the petitioner's complaint. The court mandated immediate FIR registration if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence or mandate a 15-day preliminary inquiry if it does not, in adherence to Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed directing the SHO to register an FIR if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence or conduct a 15-day preliminary inquiry if it does not.

R.Karthikeyan, M/a 48 Years, Vs the Commissioner of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.02.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.3240 of 2018

R.Karthikeyan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent police to register the complaint dated 11.11.2017

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Johnson For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER

¶12

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 11.11.2017.

¶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 11.11.2017 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 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

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

¶16

The first 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.

¶17

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 11.11.2017 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 second respondent 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 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.

¶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

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 second respondent station.

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.

¶31

The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.C.D.Johnson, Advocate, S.R.No.8177 Crl.O.P.No.3240 of 2018

¶32

PVs(CO) RRK(22/02/2018)

¶33

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

R.Karthikeyan, M/a 48 Years, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Karthikeyan, M/a 48 Years, 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

D.Stalin Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Chellapandi Vs State Represented by

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

L.Jaishankar, Aged 44 Years, Vs Mohan Harinath

A.Germanraj, Aged 45 Years, Vs State Rep. by

K.Suppan, Aged 65 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police