Allowed

J.Krishnakumar v. the State Rep by

Madras HC15 Mar 2018CRL OP/8010/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the inaction of the police station regarding a petitioner's complaint and issued specific directions for registering the FIR or conducting a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days if the information did not disclose a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

Directions to provide a copy of the complaint and mandatory registration of FIR or conclusive preliminary inquiry within 15 days.

J.Krishnakumar Vs the State Rep by — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶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.8010 of 2018

¶6

J.Krishnakumar

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
The State rep by
Inspector of Police,
Mahalingapuram Police Station,
Mahalingapuram, Pollachi,
Coimbatore ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register
petitioner's complaint dated 23.01.2018.
For Petitioner : M/s.Saravanabhauman Associate
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to the
respondent police to register a case on the basis of the
petitioner's complaint dated 23.01.2018.

¶9

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

¶10

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 23.01.2018 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.

¶11

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

¶12

The 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.

¶13

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 23.01.2018 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

Assistant Registrar /TRUE COPY/

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The Inspector of Police, Mahalingapuram Police Station, Mahalingapuram, Pollachi,

¶26

Coimbatore

¶27

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

+1CC to M/S.Sarvabhauman Associates in SR.NO. 19804

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.8010 of 2018
MLT-28/03/2018

¶30

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

J.Krishnakumar v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Krishnakumar v. the State Rep by

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

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

Kuppayi, Aged 63 Years, Vs State Rep. by

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