Allowed

P.Iyappan, M/a 39 Years v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC20 Mar 2018CRL OP/8391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the Respondents, the Commissioner of Police and Police Inspector, to act on the petitioner's complaint. Directions were issued for immediate FIR registration if a cognizable offence is disclosed, or conducting a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days otherwise.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to give the complaint copy to the SHO; SHO to register FIR forthwith if cognizable offence disclosed, or conduct inquiry within 15 days if not.

P.Iyappan, M/a 39 Years Vs the State Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8391 of 2018

¶6

P.Iyappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep.by
The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery,
Chennai – 7.
2. The State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
M-6, Manali Police Station,
Manali,
Chennai – 68. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 07.02.2018.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gouthaman
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

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 07.02.2018.

¶11

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

¶12

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 07.02.2018 to the respondents, 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a

¶13

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 07.02.2018 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 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. 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Sd/ASST. REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST. REGISTRAR AT

¶22

¶23

The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai – 7.

¶24

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

¶25

The Inspector of Police, M-6, Manali Police Station, Manali, Chennai – 68.

¶26

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶27

+1 cc to Mr.M.Gouthaman, Advocate SR.NO. 20813
Crl.O.P.No.8391 of 2018
PA(CO)
JK 09/04/18

¶28

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

P.Iyappan, M/a 39 Years v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Iyappan, M/a 39 Years 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

Ayyannam Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Abaranji, M/A.63 Yrs Vs the Commissioner of Police

M.Mahendran, 30 Years Vs State by Its

P.Kumarasamy, M/A.72 Years Vs the State Rep.by

P.Diwakar M/45 Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.a.Gopal Rao @ Vijay Vs State Represented by