The High Court disposed of a Criminal Original Petition seeking police protection under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding it not maintainable based on Division Bench guidelines requiring resort to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. first.
Petition dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability; liberty granted to work out remedy per Division Bench guidelines.
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: 08.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.9442 of 2019
P.Sengodan ... Petitioner
Vs
Villupuram.
Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.
Chinna Salem Police Station, Chinna Salem, Villupuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents police herein to provide police protection to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkadeshan
For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents police herein to provide police protection to the petitioner.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
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, 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:-
“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.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rna
To
1.The Deputy Director General of Police,
O/o. The Deputy Director General
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Chinna Salem Police Station,
Chinna Salem,
Villupuram District.
Crl.O.P.No.9442 of 2019
rsi(co) nr 06/05/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition to direct police to provide protection under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable in view of the Division Bench guidelines.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the petitioner for police protection instead of following Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
P. Sengodan
Deputy Director General of Police, Villupuram District
Superintendent of Police, Villupuram
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi
Inspector of Police, Chinna Salem
G.K. Intaraiyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
