Allowed

Pramila Sankaran, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC6 Feb 2018CRL OP/3375/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC. It directed the 2nd respondent to process a complaint, register an FIR if it discloses a cognizable offence, or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if it does not, citing Lalita Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit complaint copy; Respondent to register FIR or conduct inquiry within 15 days; furnish closure report within one week if complaint closed.

Pramila Sankaran, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.02.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.3375 of 2018

¶5

Pramila Sankaran

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, Crime,
S.15, Selaiyur Police Station,
Selaiyur, Chennai-73. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to register a first information report on the basis of the report dated 09.11.2017 lodged by the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsenthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate [Crl. Side] ORDER

¶11

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to register a first information report on the basis of the report dated 09.11.2017 lodged by the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 09.11.2017 to the 2^nd 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.

¶14

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

¶15

The respondents are 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 09.11.2017 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

All information relating to cognizable offences

¶22

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

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

sji

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, Crime, S.15, Selaiyur Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai-73.

¶32

The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.3375 of 2018
GP(CO)
RRK(22/02/2018)

¶33

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

Pramila Sankaran, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Sankaran, 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

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

L.Jaishankar, Aged 44 Years, Vs Mohan Harinath

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

A.Leema Mary, A/22 Vs State Rep by

Dr.S.M.Zambia, Aged 53 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Elaya Raja, Aged 31 Years, Vs the State Rep. by