Allowed

Chinnamma v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Mar 2018CRL OP/9089/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the police to register an FIR if the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence or conduct a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days if it did not, ensuring compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police to register the FIR if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence or conduct a preliminary inquiry within fifteen days otherwise.

Chinnamma Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:23.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
Crl.O.P.No.9089 of 2018
1.Chinnamma
2.Venkateshappa
3.Logesh
4.Sriram @ Srikanth
5.Arunkumar
6.Ragu ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri.
2. State by
The Inspector of Police,
Bergari Police Station,
Bergari, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents

¶5

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register FIR on his complaint dated 01.03.2018.

¶6

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Thiruvenkadam
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER

¶7

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to register FIR on his complaint dated 01.03.2018.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

3.The grievance of the petitioners are that inspite of a complaint given by them on 01.03.2018 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 where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

¶11

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.

¶12

5.In the result, the petitioners are directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 01.03.2018 to the Station Housing Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the issue. On receipt of the said copy of the complaint, the concerned Station Housing Officer shall adhere to the following directions.

¶13

1)If the information received by the 2^nd 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 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.

¶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 2^nd respondent 's police station.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar
aav
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Bergari Police Station,
Bergari, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.K.Thiruvengadam, Advocate, S.R.No.22059
Crl.O.P.No.9089 of 2018
RRK(13/04/2018)

¶23

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

Chinnamma v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnamma 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

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

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