Allowed

T.Krishnamurthy, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC8 Mar 2018CRL OP/7011/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court deemed the respondent police's inaction on the petitioner's complaint unjustified. Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and relying on Section 154 Cr.P.C. and Lalita Kumari, the Court directed the Station House Officer to register an FIR if a cognizable offence was disclosed or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days otherwise, specifying strict timelines and diar

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to provide complaint copy to Station House Officer; Police directed to register FIR or conduct inquiry within 15 days with specific reporting requirements.

T.Krishnamurthy, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7011 of 2018

¶6

T.Krishnamurthy ... Petitioner

¶7

The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. State rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Poonamallee Police Station,
Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2 nd respondent to register a case
based on the petitioner's complaint dated 07.02.2018 pending on
the file of the 2 nd respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
O R D E R

¶9

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 07.02.2018.

¶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 07.02.2018 to the 2^nd 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

¶12

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

¶13

disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶14

The 2^nd 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 07.02.2018 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.

¶16

1)If the information received by the 2^nd respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶17

2)If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the 2^nd 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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 2^nd respondent's police station.

¶21

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

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶29

The Inspector of Police, Poonamallee Police Station, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056.

¶30

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.T.Sundaravadanam, Advocate, S.R.No.17825
Crl.O.P.No.7011 of 2018
GMR(CO)
RRK(16/03/2018)

¶32

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

T.Krishnamurthy, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Krishnamurthy, v. the Commissioner 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

S.Ganesan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Selvi, F/a 40 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Gopikrishnan, M/a 21 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

L.N.Pragasham, 58 Years, Vs the State Rep. by Its

C.Allimuthu, Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Dhanalakshmi, Vs the State Rep. by Its