Allowed

Ganesan, M/a 45 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2018CRL OP/5384/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted a criminal original petition for directions to the respondent police to register a case. The court ordered the filing of the complaint with the Station House Officer and mandated either immediate FIR registration or a preliminary enquiry within fifteen days depending on the nature of the offence, citing mandatory provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent police to register the case if a cognizable offence is disclosed or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if not, furnishing the report to the petitioner within one week

Ganesan, M/a 45 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | 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.5384 of 2018

¶6

Ganesan ... Petitioner
Versus
The State Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Brahmadesam Police Station,
Brahmadesam,
Tindivanam. ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to direct the respondent to register a FIR on the basis
of the complaint dated 07.01.2018 pending in CSR.No.15 of 2018
on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathyaraj
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to the
respondent police to register a case on the basis of the
petitioner's complaint dated 07.01.2018.
2. By consent of both sides, this Criminal Original
Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 07.01.2018 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 preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 07.01.2018 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.

¶11

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

¶12

If an information received does not disclose 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

klt

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.The Inspector of Police, Brahmadesam Police Station, Brahmadesam, Tindivanam.

¶23

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.S.SATHYARAJ, Advocate, S.R.No. 13359

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.5384 of 2018 TR(14/03/2018)

¶26

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

Ganesan, M/a 45 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan, M/a 45 Yrs, v. the Inspector 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

Seshadri, M/a 30 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent of Police

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