Allowed

V.K.Ranganathan, Aged 46 Years v. State by

Madras HC13 Feb 2018CRL OP/3374/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case. Upholding the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offences under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as per Lalita Kumari, the Court issued specific directions regarding registration, preliminary inquiry timelines, diary entries, and closure reports.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to give copy of complaint to SHO; SHO directed to register FIR if cognizable offence disclosed, conduct inquiry within 15 days otherwise, record closure report, and reflect entries

V.K.Ranganathan, Aged 46 Years Vs State by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3374 of 2018
V.K.Ranganathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
State by,
The Inspector of Police,
(Law & Order)
Virugambakkam Police Station,
Chennai - 600 092. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent police to register
the complaint dated 30.06.2017 in C.S.R.No.769 of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasi Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.Kritika Kamal.P
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER

¶6

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 30.06.2017.

¶7

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

¶8

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 30.06.2017 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

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 30.06.2017 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/
Assistant Registrar
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
(Law & Order)
Virugambakkam Police Station,
Chennai - 600 092.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.R.Sasikumar, Advocate SR.No.11046
Crl.O.P.No.3374 of 2018
KP 26.02.2016

¶21

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

V.K.Ranganathan, Aged 46 Years v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Ranganathan, Aged 46 Years v. State 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

G.Anbalagan, M/43 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Vijayakumar, Aged 67 Years, Vs State Rep. by

C.Senthilkumar, Vs State by

Mr.M.Gowri Shankar, A/38, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M.Elumalai, (M/49) Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Perumal (M/37) Vs the Inspector of Police