Allowed

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

Madras HC26 Mar 2018CRL OP/9427/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras ruled that the police cannot keep a cognizable offence complaint unattended. It directed the SHO to either register the FIR or complete a preliminary inquiry within 15 days, depending on the information disclosed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to seek the courtesy of the Station House Officer to show the complaint dated 07.02.2018.

Mrs.S.Sunitha, Aged 28 Years Vs State Rep. by — Cheque Dishonour | 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.9427 of 2018

¶6

S.Sunitha ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, D-4, Guduvancheri Police Station, Guduvancheri.

¶9

(CSR.No.138 of 2018) ... Respondent

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register F.I.R against the accused on the complaint given by the petitioner in C.S.R.No.138 of 2018 dated 07.02.2018 on the file of the respondent and to investigate the case properly according to law.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Jagan Kumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER

¶12

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 07.02.2018.

¶13

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

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by her on 07.02.2018 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

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

¶16

The 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

1.The Inspector of Police, D-4, Guduvancheri Police Station, Guduvancheri.

¶30

2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 2 ccs to Mr. R. Jagan Kumar, Advocate Sr.22517
Crl.O.P.No.9427 of 2018
GJII(CO)
EU(12/04/2018 )

¶31

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.S.Sunitha, Aged 28 Years v. 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

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

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

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