Allowed

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

Madras HC7 Feb 2018CRL OP/4290/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the police to register an FIR if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence or conduct a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days otherwise, citing Lalita Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to give a copy of the complaint to the SHO and register the FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed, or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days.

Mr.a.Rajasekar, S/O.Arjunan, Vs State Rep.by… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4290 of 2014

¶6

Mr.A.Rajasekar ... Petitioner Vs. State Rep.by its The Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai- 600 104. ... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register the case based on the compliant dated 06.02.2014 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Samadharama Arasu For Respondent : Ms.Kritika Kamal.P Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER

¶9

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to register the case based on the compliant dated 06.02.2014 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

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

¶11

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 06.02.2014 to the 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

¶12

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

¶13

preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶14

The 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 06.02.2014 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 respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶17

2)If an information received does not disclose

¶18

a cognizable offence, the 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.

¶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

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/
Assistant Registrar
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
B-2, Esplanade Police Station,
Chennai- 600 104.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.C.Samadharma arasu Advocate SR.No.9615
Crl.O.P.No.4290 of 2014
SDR 17.02.2018

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

Pramila Sankaran, Vs the Commissioner of Police

D.Ravi, Aged 45 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Gunasekaran, Vs State by

A.Karthi, Aged 48 Years, Vs State by