The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the concerned police station to process a complaint. The Court mandated either immediate FIR registration or a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days depending on whether the information disclosed a cognizable offence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
Crl.O.P.No.3991 of 2018
C.Senthilkumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
State Represented by
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents to register the petitioner's complaint dated 31.01.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 31.01.2018.
2.By consent of both sides, this Criminal Original Petition is taken up for final disposal.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 31.01.2018 to the 1st 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.
5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 31.01.2018 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.
1)If the information received by the 2nd respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.
2)If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the 2nd 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.
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 2nd respondent's police station.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vum/ak
| To | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1. |
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Crimes Wing, Erode District. |
|
| 2. |
The Inspector of Police, Economic Crimes Wing, Erode District. |
|
| 3. |
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. |
|
| +1 | CC to Mr.N. Ponraj, Advocate sr 10503. | |
| Crl.O.P.No.3991 of 2018 | ||
| RJ( SP( |
CO) 22/02/2018) |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the police officer is justified in keeping a complaint unattended without taking further action.
Whether the Court can invoke inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct registration/inquiry of a complaint.
What directions should be issued to the police regarding registration of FIR or conduct of preliminary inquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2013 (6) CTC 353]Explained¶19
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C. Senthilkumar
State Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Crimes Wing, Erode District
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Economic Crimes Wing, Erode District
M.S.Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
