Allowed

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

Madras HC12 Feb 2018CRL OP/4014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to police to register a case based on a complaint kept in abeyance. The High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing police to either immediately register the FIR if the offence is cognizable or complete a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days if not.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to give complaint copy to SHO; SHO to register FIR immediately if cognizable offence is disclosed, or conduct preliminary inquiry within 15 days if not, recording closure reasons a

G.Anbalagan, M/43 Years, Vs the Superintendent of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4014 of 2018

¶6

G.Anbalagan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police,
Nallipalayam,
Namakkal District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Pudhuchathiram Police Station,
Salem Main Road,
Pudhuchathiram,
Namakkal District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2 nd respondent Police to register
petitioner's complaint dated 18.12.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajesh kanna For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 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 18.12.2017.

¶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 18.12.2017 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 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.

¶13

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case for this Court to invoke its inherent powers under

¶14

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶15

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 18.12.2017 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.

¶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

Sd/--

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

vum/nl

¶27

¶28

The Superintendent of Police, Nallipalayam, Namakkal District.

¶29

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

¶30

The Inspector of Police, Pudhuchathiram Police Station, Salem Main Road,

¶31

Pudhuchathiram, Namakkal District.

¶32

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna, Advocate Sr.No.10458

¶34

NRJK(CO) sm:21.2.2018

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.4014 of 2018

¶36

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Anbalagan, M/43 Years, v. the Superintendent 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.Gopal, M/65 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

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

P.J.Aadhithan Vs the State Rep by

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

C.Senthilkumar, Vs State by

Ramadoss, 54 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police