Allowed

Saravanan, M/A.50 Years v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC26 Mar 2018CRL OP/9362/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought a direction to the respondent police to register an FIR based on his complaint dated 19.03.2018, which was kept in abeyance. The Court, relying on Lalita Kumari, held that registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence, otherwise a preliminary inquiry must be conducted within 15 day

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed; directions issued to the Inspector of Police to register FIR or conduct preliminary inquiry within 15 days as per Lalita Kumari guidelines.

Saravanan, M/A.50 Years Vs State Rep by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9362 of 2018

¶6

Saravanan ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Senthamangalam Police Station,
Senthamangalam,
Namakkal District.

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent Police to register a
FIR on the complaint dated 19.03.2018 in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : M/s.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER

¶9

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 19.03.2018.

¶10

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

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by him on 19.03.2018 to the respondent, the same has been kept in abeyance without any action. It is well settled in the udgment 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.

¶12

The respondent is not justified in having received the complaint and keeping it unattended without any further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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.

¶13

In the result, the petitioner is directed to give a copy of the complaint dated 19.03.2018 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

-sd/-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

ub/klt

¶25

¶26

1.The Inspector of Police, Senthamangalam Police Station, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Senthamangalam, Namakkal District.

¶27

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

C.C. to M/S.W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate SR.NO.22930

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.9362 of 2018

¶30

VS 09.04.2018

¶31

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

Saravanan, M/A.50 Years v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan, M/A.50 Years v. State Rep by Its

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

K.Sudhakar, Vs State Rep. by

S.Indira Vs the Inspector of Police

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

P.N.Rajkumar A/43 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Murugesan, Aged 44 Years Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mrs.S.Sunitha, Aged 28 Years Vs State Rep. by