Allowed

P.J.Aadhithan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC9 Feb 2018CRL OP/3810/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition sought a direction to the police to register an FIR based on a complaint filed on 27.11.2014. The Court held that the police were unjustified in keeping the complaint unattended. It issued specific directions for either immediate registration of an FIR or completion of a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days, furnishing a closure report if no offence was disclosed

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to send complaint copy to SHO; SHO must register FIR if offence disclosed or complete inquiry within 15 days and submit closure report within one week.

P.J.Aadhithan Vs the State Rep by — 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.3810 of 2018

¶6

P.J.Aadhithan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep. by,
The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, (Land Grabbing)
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
E1, Ponneri Police Station,
Ponneri Tak,
Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to register FIR on the complaints dated 27.11.2014 in 031540/14/2122 on the file of the second respondent, investigate and to file a final report.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreerangan For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 27.11.2014.

¶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 27.11.2014 to the 1^st 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if an

¶13

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

The 1^st 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.

¶15

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 27.11.2014 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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 2^nd respondent's police station.

¶21

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

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, (Land Grabbing)
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
E1, Ponneri Police Station,
Ponneri Tk.,
Thiruvallur District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to MR. R. Sreerangan, Advocate Sr.10486
Crl.O.P.No.3810 of 2018
SS(CO)
EU(26/02/2018 )

¶28

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

P.J.Aadhithan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Aadhithan v. the State Rep 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

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

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

R.Kannima, Vs the State Rep. by