Petitioner sought by way of a Crl.O.P. to direct police registration of his complaint. The court dismissed the petition, holding it was not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without first exhausting remedies under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. following a Division Bench order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 18.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 7182 of 2019
R.Chandran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Director General of Police,
(Law and Order)
Chennai.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
(ALGSC) Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
4. The Inspector of Police (ALGSC),
Krishnagiri District Police Office,
Krishnagiri District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to directing the 4 th
respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated
10.12.2018 and investigate the same in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to directing the 4 th respondent to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.12.2018 and investigate the same in accordance with law.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent.
“35.Accordingly, we answer the references in the following manner, while giving certain directions:
(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in all circumstances.
(ii) It is not an alternative remedy to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but a repository of inherent power. (iii) The normal course of remedy on a failure or refusal to record the information is Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after due compliance of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.
(iv) A petition can be filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court only after the completion of 15 days from the date of receipt of the information by the Station House Officer. The Registry shall not receive any petition before the expiry of 15 days aforesaid.
(v) No petition shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.
(vi) An informant can send substance of the information to the Superintendent of Police on knowing the decision of the Station House Officer in not registering the case and proceeding with the preliminary enquiry. After conducting the preliminary enquiry, the Station House Officer's decision in either registering the compliant or closing it will have to be intimated to the informant immediately and in any case not later than 7 days. Once such a decision is made, the informant cannot invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C.as the remedy lies elsewhere.
(vii) The directions issued by the Director General of Police in the circulars referred are to be strictly complied with by all the Station House Officers.
(viii) The affidavit to be filed shall contain particulars regarding the date of complaint, receipt and the date of sending substances of the information to the superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and its receipt. The Registry shall not number any petition without due
compliance.
(ix) This Court is not bound to direct the police to register the complaint in all cases not withstanding the breach of time table furnished in Lalitha Kumari's case.
(x) The judicial Magistrates, while dealing the petitions under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C. are directed to keep in mind the narratives in Lalitha Kumari's case with specific reference to the cases, which might require a preliminary enquiry before issuing a direction to investigate and after careful perusal of the complaint. The other directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Sugesan Transport's case are upheld.
(xi) Eschewing Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is only on exceptional and rarest of rare cases. Monstrosity of the offence, extreme official apathy and indifference, need to answer the judicial conscience, and existence of hostile environment are few of the factors to be borne in mind to bring a case under the rarest of rare one.”
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision referred supra.
4. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
ssr/vv2
Sd/Deputy Registrar(C.S)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Additional Director General of Police, (Law and Order) Chennai.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (ALGSC) Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
4. The Inspector of Police (ALGSC), Krishnagiri District Police Office, Krishnagiri District.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No. 7182 of 2019
Kak(08/04/2019)
R.Chandran
The Inspector of Police (ALGSC), Krishnagiri District Police Office, Krishnagiri District
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
