Allowed

S.Uma F/34, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Mar 2018CRL OP/6225/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed police to act on a complainant filed with the third respondent either by registering an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence or by conducting a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days if it does not. The petition was allowed with specific procedural mandates.

What did the court decide?

Direction to copy complaint to SHO and mandate FIR registration or 15-day preliminary inquiry with closure report within one week.

S.Uma F/34, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6225 of 2018

¶6

S.Uma ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vandalur Sub-Division,
Vandalur, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
D-3 Police Station,
Guduvanchery,
Chennai - 603 202. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register a case on
the complaint dated 08.01.2018, investigate and file final
report.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gowthaman
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
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 08.01.2018.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 08.01.2018 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 information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶10

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.

¶11

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 08.01.2018 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.

¶12

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

¶13

2)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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

-s/d- Assistant Registrar

¶20

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ak
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vandalur Sub-Division,
Vandalur, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
D-3 Police Station,
Guduvanchery,
Chennai - 603 202.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.K.Gowthaman, Advocate Sr.No.15592
+1 CC to Mr.K.Gowthaman, Advocate Sr.No.15592 (20/03/2018)

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.6225 of 2018

¶22

KP(14/03/2018)

¶23

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

S.Uma F/34, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Uma F/34, 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

Dhanam, F/a 52 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Cognizant Technology Vs the Inspector of Police

E.Dhamodharan, Aged 36 Years, Vs State Rep. by

R.Srinivasan, Vs the State Rep by Its

Mrs.Sundari, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.Shabeer Ahemed, Vs the State Rep by Its