Allowed

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

Madras HC8 Mar 2018CRL OP/7019/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the police to act on a pending complaint. Directing the police to either register the FIR if it discloses a cognizable offence or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days otherwise, with specific mandates.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent police to register the FIR forthwith if it discloses a cognizable offence, or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if it does not, with timelines for closure re

L.N.Pragasham, 58 Years, Vs the State Rep. by… — 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.7019 of 2018
L.N.Pragasham ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep.by
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 23.12.2015 pending on the file of the respondents police in acknowdgment no 2511/2015.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreerangan
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶8

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 23.12.2015.

¶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 23.12.2015 to the 2^nd respondent, the same has been kept in abeyance without any action. It is well

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶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 23.12.2015 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

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

¶22

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

¶23

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
at
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2cc to Mr.R.Sreerangan, Advocate, S.R.No.18088
Crl.O.P.No.7019 of 2018
RRK(23/03/2018)

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.N.Pragasham, 58 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

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

T.Krishnamurthy, Vs the Commissioner of Police

C.Allimuthu, Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Dhanalakshmi, Vs the State Rep. by Its