Allowed

Jagadish, M/a 23 Years, v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC15 Mar 2018CRL OP/7007/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to direct the police to process a delayed complaint. The court mandated FIR registration if the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence or conducted a preliminary inquiry within 15 days otherwise, ensuring proper diary entries and closure reports.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to supply the complaint copy to the SHO; the SHO was directed to register the FIR if a cognizable offence was disclosed or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days.

Jagadish, M/a 23 Years, Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:15.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7007 of 2018

¶6

R. Jagadish ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Arakkonam, Vellore District. ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 praying to direct the respondent herein to register the statement dated 26.08.2018 on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Hasain For Respondent : Mrs.P. Kritika Kamal Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER

¶10

This petition is filed for seeking a direction the respondent herein to register the statement dated 26.08.2018 on the file of the respondent police.

¶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 26.08.2018 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.

¶13

The respondent is not justified in having received the complaint and keeping it unattended without any further action.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 26.08.2018 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.

¶17

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

¶18

2)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.

¶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

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

¶23

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Arakkonam, Vellore District

¶28

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

+1CC to M.Mohamed Hasain, Advocate in SR.NO. 19947

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.7007 of 2018
MLT-28/03/2018

¶31

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

Jagadish, M/a 23 Years, v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadish, M/a 23 Years, v. the State Rep. by Its

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

Palepalli Sri Gangamman Alaya Vs State Rep. by

M.Natarajan, Vs the District Collector

Dr.C.Mohan, M/a 69 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

J.Krishnakumar Vs the State Rep by

S.R.Murugan, M/a 40 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kuppayi, Aged 63 Years, Vs State Rep. by