Allowed

Seshadri, M/a 30 Yrs, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2018CRL OP/5382/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras set aside the inaction of the police in handling a complaint. It directed the concerned SHO to either register an FIR immediately if a cognizable offence was disclosed or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if it was not, complying with the Lalita Kumari guidelines.

What did the court decide?

P petitioner directed to give complaint copy to SHO; SHO directed to register FIR forthwith if offence disclosed or conduct preliminary inquiry within 15 days.

Seshadri, M/a 30 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5382 of 2018

¶6

Seshadri ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.State Rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶9

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶10

3.The Inspector of Police, Cheyyar Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the third respondent police to register the FIR based on the complainant dated 10.01.2018, pending before the third respondents, within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Amarnath For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the third respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 10.01.2018.

¶15

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

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 10.01.2018 to the third 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶17

The third 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.

¶18

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 10.01.2018 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.

¶19

If the information received by the third respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶20

If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the third 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.

¶21

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

¶22

If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the disclosure report must be recorded along with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be furnished to the complainant within one week.

¶23

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 third respondent's police station.

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AR-J)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

klt

¶29

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

¶30

To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Cheyyar Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to MR.N.S. Amarnath, Advocate Sr.13438
Crl.O.P.No.5382 of 2018
(ar-j)
EU(16/03/2018 )

¶31

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

Seshadri, M/a 30 Yrs, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seshadri, M/a 30 Yrs, 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

P.S.Ravi, M/57 Vs State by

V.Sekar, M/a 51 Years, Vs State Rep.by

C.Vishal Kumar, M/23 Vs the Commissioner of Police

V.Kailash, Aged 35 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Srithar, S/O.Chandran, Vs the Inspector of Police

Ganesan, M/a 45 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police