Dismissed

S.Gunasekaran v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Sept 2019WP(MD)/17069/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Madurai Bench held that a writ petition mandamus for directing police registration of a case is not maintainable immediately. The petitioner must first exhaust remedies under Section 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. and wait 15 days before invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., following earlier Division Bench directions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to work out remedy as per Division Bench guidelines; writ petition dismissed.

S.Gunasekaran Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Writ Petition (MD) No.17069 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Writ Petition (MD) No.17069 of 2019

S.Gunasekaran

... Petitioner

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police,

¶9

Madurai.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶11

Melur Police Station,

Melur, Madurai.

3.Kannan

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to register the case against the 3^rd respondent.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.R.Anandharaj, APP for RR1 and 2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to register the case against the 3^rd respondent.

¶20

2.This writ petition is nothing but for registration of the complaint. 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:-

¶21

“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.

¶22

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

¶23

(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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.

¶24

1/3

¶25

Writ Petition (MD) No.17069 of 2019

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

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

¶34

2/3

¶35

Writ Petition (MD) No.17069 of 2019

¶36

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.

¶37