Allowed

Saravanan, Age 34 Years, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Mar 2018CRL OP/7783/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, directed the police to register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days regarding the petitioner's complaint kept in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to give copy of complaint to SHO; SHO to register FIR or conduct inquiry within 15 days, record closure report with reasons and furnish copy within one week if closed.

Saravanan, Age 34 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:14.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7783 of 2018

¶6

Saravanan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by
The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Ulunthurpettai,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register the FIR
based on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.02.2018 and take
cognizance on the same in accordance with law.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sathishkumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER

¶9

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 17.02.2018.

¶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 17.02.2018 to the second 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 respondents are 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 17.02.2018 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 second 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 second 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 second respondent's police station.

¶21

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

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

//True copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.

¶30

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulunthurpettai, Cuddalore District.

¶31

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.R.Sathish Kumar, Advocate SR.No.18977
Crl.O.P.No.7783 of 2018
GN(26/03/2018)

¶33

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

Saravanan, Age 34 Years, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan, Age 34 Years, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

D.Vijayalakshmi, Aged 65 Years Vs the Commissioner of Police

Jothi, F/a 45 Yrs, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Chitra, F/a 32 Yrs, Vs the Commissioner of Police

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