Allowed

A.Vadivel, MALE/66 v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Mar 2018CRL OP/8760/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the police station to register an FIR if the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, otherwise to conduct a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days. The petitioner was directed to submit a copy of the complaint to the local Station House Officer.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to submit the complaint to the SHO; the SHO was directed to register an FIR if cognizable offence is disclosed or complete a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if not.

A.Vadivel, MALE/66 Vs the Superintendent of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8760 of 2018

A.Vadivel

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police Niligiri, Niligiri District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police Devala Police Station Niligiri District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second respondent to register the complaint dated 08.03.2018 given to the respondents, pending on the file of the respondent, in the above case.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Kingsly Solomon J For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan

¶13

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to register the FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 08.03.2018.

¶16

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

¶17

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 08.03.2018 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

¶18

disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶19

The second 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.

¶20

5.In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 08.03.2018 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.

¶21

1)If the information received by the 2^nd respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the disclosure report must be recorded along with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be furnished to the complainant within one week.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

1.The Superintendent of Police Niligiri, Niligiri District.

¶33

2.The Inspector of Police Devala Police Station Niligiri District.

¶34

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.8760 of 2018

¶36

nr 06/04/2018

A.Vadivel, MALE/66 v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Vadivel, MALE/66 v. the Superintendent of Police

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

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

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

P.Diwakar M/45 Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.N.P.Shyam Kumar, M/34 Vs the State Representation by

T.S.Ramesh, M/a 48 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Tamilselvi, Vs The District Collector