Allowed

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

Madras HC8 Feb 2018CRL OP/3657/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed Criminal Original Petitions invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct police authorities to act on pending complaints. The judgment mandates FIR registration if a cognizable offence is disclosed or a preliminary inquiry within 15 days otherwise. It also stipulates timelines for closure reports and diary entries.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit complaint copy to Station House Officer; FIR to be registered or inquiry conducted within 15 days as applicable; closure reports to be furnished within one week.

Shanmugaraja, M/A.48 Yrs Vs the Commissioner of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos. 3657 & 3658 of 2018 Shanmugaraja ... Petitioner in Crl O.P.No. 3657 of 2018 Amalraj ... Petitioner in Crl O.P.No. 3658 of 2018 Vs. 1. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, 132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Salai, Chennai. 2. The Inspector of Police, T-14, Mangadu Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondents in both Crl O.Ps COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 24.01.2018. *** For Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.J.Milton Arul Rajendran For Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps. : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶6

COMMON ORDER

¶7

These petitions are filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to register the petitioners' complaint dated 24.01.2018.

¶8

By consent of both sides, these Criminal Original Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of a complaint given by them on 24.01.2018 to the 2^nd respondent , the same has been kept in abeyance without any action. It is

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

The 2^nd respondent is not justified in having received the complaint and keeping it unattended without any further action. In view of the same, the petitioners have made out a case for this Court to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶13

In the result, the petitioners are directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 14.09.2017 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶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

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

¶20

In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed with the above directions.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-iv)
//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

mm/vsg

¶24

To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
132, Commissioner Office Building,
EVK Sampath Salai,
Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
T-14, Mangadu Police Station,
Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.J.MILTON ARULRAJENDRAN, Advocate, S.R.No. 10185
+1cc to Mr.J.MILTON ARULRAJENDRAN, Advocate, S.R.No. 10186
(07/06/2018)
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3657 & 3658 of 2018
TR(21/02/2018)

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmugaraja, M/A.48 Yrs 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.Ravi, Aged 45 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Gunasekaran, Vs State by

Mr.a.Rajasekar, S/O.Arjunan, Vs State Rep.by Its the Inspector

Murali, Vs State by

K.Narendran Vs P.Indira

N.Kannan Vs the Commissioner of Police