Allowed

S.Shyamsundar, M/a 45 Years, v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC9 Mar 2018CRL OP/7189/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition under Section 482, the High Court directed the police to act upon a complaint made by the petitioner. The Court issued specific guidelines on mandatory FIR registration, preliminary inquiry timelines, and diary entries if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police officer to register the FIR if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if it does not.

S.Shyamsundar, M/a 45 Years, Vs the State Rep… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7189 of 2018

¶6

S.Shyamsundar ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State by. The Inspector of Police (L & O) C-2, Elephant Gate Police Station, Chennai – 600 007. ... Respondent

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to register Final Report based on the petitioner's Complaint dated 24.11.2017 made by the Petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajavelu For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER

¶11

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register Final Report based on the petitioner's Complaint dated 24.11.2017 made by the Petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 24.11.2017 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.

¶14

The respondent is not justified in having received the complaint and keeping it unattended without any further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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

In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 24.11.2017 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

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

¶17

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.

¶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

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-DR)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

klt

¶26

¶27

1.The Inspector of Police (L & O)

¶28

C-2, Elephant Gate Police Station,

¶29

Chennai – 600 007.

¶30

2.The Public Prosecutor,

¶31

High Court, Madras.

¶32

- 1 cc toMR. Rajavelu, Advocate SR.18728

¶33

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

¶34

(CS-DR) EU(23/03/2018 )

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.7189 of 2018

S.Shyamsundar, M/a 45 Years, v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Shyamsundar, M/a 45 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

T.Krishnamurthy, Vs the Commissioner of Police

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

C.Allimuthu, Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Kathiravan, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

Shankaran, a 53 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandrika, F/a 22 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police