Dismissed

S.Indu Rani v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Aug 2020CRL OP/13119/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to register a police complaint invoking Lalitha Kumari judgment. Court dismissed petition as not maintainable under existing Division Bench guidelines, granting liberty to follow said procedural requirements instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to work out remedy per Division Bench guidelines.

S.Indu Rani Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13119 of 2019

¶6

Indu Rani F/A 64 years,

¶7

W/o. Thiyagarajan, SAI MOTORA (TVS-SJOW ROOM) Survey No.182, 183, P.H.Road Manavalan Nagar, Thiruvallur District. ...Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, C-5, Manavalan Nagar, Police Station, Thiruvallur. ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent to register the case based on the complaint dated 13.07.2020 in view of Lalitha Kumari Case (Supreme Court).

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Thenrajan For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor. ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed seeking direction directing the respondent to register the case based on the complaint dated 13.07.2020 in view of Lalitha Kumari Case (Supreme Court).

¶12

2. Heard Mr. K.Thenrajan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶13

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:-

¶14

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

¶15

Page numbers

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(x) The judicial Magistrates, while dealing the petitions under Sections 156(3)

¶27

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

¶28

Page numbers

¶29

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.

¶30

(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.”

¶31

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.

¶32

With the above direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsn
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
C-5, Manavalan Nagar, Police Station,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.13119 of 2020
SSV(CO)
CB(28/10/2020)

¶33

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

¶34

Page numbers

S.Indu Rani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Indu Rani 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

Sai Arun Prasath Vs the State

Ravi @ Ravichandran Vs State Represented by

Lakshmi Prakash Vs the Commissioner of Police

K.G.Gopalakrishnan Vs State Rep.by

Bhakiya Lakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Babu Vs S.Chitra