Allowed

Mrs.G.Pachaiammal, v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC23 Mar 2018CRL OP/9035/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction to register an FIR. The Court directed the police to immediately register the FIR if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence or conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days if it does not, ensuring proper recording in diaries.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to provide complaint copy to Station Housing Officer who must register FIR promptly or conclude preliminary inquiry within 15 days and serve closure report within one week if no of

Mrs.G.Pachaiammal, Vs the State Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.9035 of 2018
G.Pachaiammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
B-4, High Court Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
direct the respondent to register a FIR in the complaint of the petitioner
dated 22.02.2018.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anitha
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to register a FIR in the complaint of the petitioner dated 22.02.2018

¶10

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

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

for final disposal.

¶14

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

¶15

The respondent is not justified in having received the complaint

¶16

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

¶17

powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶18

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

¶19

complaint dated 22.02.2018 to the Station Housing Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the issue. On receipt of the said copy of the complaint,

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

the concerned Station Housing Officer shall adhere to the following

¶23

directions.

¶24

1)If the information received by the respondent

¶25

discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the

¶26

same shall be forthwith registered.

¶27

2)If an information received does not disclose a

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

4) If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the

¶31

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.

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J.,

aav

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.
6. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the
above directions.
23.03.2018
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
aav
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
B-4, High Court Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.9035 of 2018

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mrs.G.Pachaiammal, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.G.Pachaiammal, 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

Sujatha, 35 Yrs, Vs N.Arulvelam

Mangai, 45 Yrs Vs the State by

S.Balakrishnan, 27 Yrs Vs the Commissioner of Police

K.Sudhakar, Vs State Rep. by

S.Indira Vs the Inspector of Police

Chinnamma Vs the Superintendent of Police