Allowed

Sagunthala (F/AGE-24) v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC16 Mar 2018CRL OP/8226/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed the police to register an FIR if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. If not, a preliminary inquiry within 15 days was ordered with specific timelines for reporting.

What did the court decide?

Directed SHO to register FIR if cognizable offence disclosed;否则 conduct preliminary inquiry within 15 days; furnish closure report within one week if complaint closed.

Sagunthala (F/AGE-24) Vs the State Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8226 of 2018

¶6

Sagunthala ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant

¶7

Vs.
State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
S 14, Peerkankaranai Police Station,
Peerkankaranai 600 063. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent/Police to register the
complaint dated 22.02.2018 in C.S.R.No.117/2018 on the file of
the respondent/Police for investigation and file final report
within a specific time limit.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramprasad
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER

¶8

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 22.02.2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by her on 22.02.2018 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 22.02.2018 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶21

//True copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

dna/at

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶27

S 14, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Peerkankaranai 600 063.

¶28

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.S.Ram Prasadh, Advocate SR.No.19959

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.8226 of 2018
RJ(CO)
GN(19/04/2018)

¶31

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

Sagunthala (F/AGE-24) v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagunthala (F/AGE-24) 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

J.Krishnakumar Vs the State Rep by

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

Kuppayi, Aged 63 Years, Vs State Rep. by

G.Moorthy, (M/65) Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.K.K.Devasagayam, Aged Vs the State Rep. by Its

Mr.Micheal D.S.Dowie, Vs the Commissioner of Police