Dismissed

Krishnan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC29 Jul 2020CRL OP/11273/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking police investigation. The Single Judge dismissed it as non-maintainable, relying on a Division Bench order requiring exhaustion of remedies under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. before invoking inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as non-maintainable without exhausting remedies under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.

Krishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.07.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.11273 of 2020

¶6

Krishnan, S/o.Sangu

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station,
Vandavasi,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents
to register and investigate the complaint of the petitioner
dated 27.03.2020 in accordance with law.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Parthiban
For Respondents: Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 27.03.2020.

¶11

2. Heard Mr.E.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶12

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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ invoked in all circumstances.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ require a preliminary enquiry before issuing

¶24

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.”

¶25

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision referred supra.

¶26

With the above direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(ADI MDU)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gbi
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station,
Vandavasi,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.11273 of 2020
PP(CO)
GMY(10/09/2020)

¶27

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

Krishnan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan v. the Superintendent 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

Rathakrishnan Vs the State, Represented by

M/S. Indus Towers Limited Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Venkatesan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rajasekaran Vs Amul Prakash

Dharani Vs Jayapriya

Gayathri Vs State Rep.by