Dismissed

Balaji Venugopal v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Apr 2019CRL OP/8743/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal petition seeking directions to register an FIR. Relying on prior Division Bench guidelines, the court held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not a substitute for Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and such petitions cannot be filed until specific procedural remedies regarding complaint registration and preliminary enquiry are exhausted.

What did the court decide?

Nature of section 482 is repository of power; cannot be invoked under normal circumstances where section 156(3) remedy is available. Petition disposed of.

Balaji Venugopal Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8743 of 2019

¶6

Balaji Venugopal

¶7

representative and Project Manager of M/s.ABM Knowledgeware Ltd.,

¶8

ABM House, Plot No.268,

¶9

Linking Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. ... Petitioner

¶10

¶11

State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police to register a case (file an FIR) against Mrs.Deve Prabu, investigate the same based upon the complaint filed by the petitioner bearing CSR No.493 of 2018 dated 03.11.2018.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Padmanabhan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case (file an FIR) against Mrs.Deve Prabu, investigate the same based upon the complaint filed by the petitioner bearing CSR No.493 of 2018 dated 03.11.2018.

¶17

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.

¶18

3.In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13681 of 2018 and batch of cases,

¶19

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

¶20

dated 20.09.2018, the petition of this nature is not maintainable before this Court. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herewith:-

¶21

“35.Accordingly, we answer the references in the following manner, while giving certain directions:

¶22

(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in all circumstances.

¶23

(ii) It is not an alternative remedy to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but a repository of inherent power.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(v) No petition shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.”

¶34

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.

¶35

4.With the above observations, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rna
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kumaran Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.K.P.Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.No. 31479

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.8743 of 2019

¶37

CP(CO) GN(20/05/2019)

¶38

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

Balaji Venugopal v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Venugopal v. the Inspector 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

Susma Alaguvadivel, Vs the Superintendent of Police

G.Velumany Vs P.R.Thamarai Selvi

D.Gopi Vs the Commissioner of Police

E.Jayanthi Vs C.Thangaraj

M/S.Nag Leathers Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Dynamic Marketing

Vasantha Mani Vs The District Collector