Dismissed

R.Narayana Samy Reddy v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC24 Sept 2020CRL OP/15034/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the police to register an FIR, the Single Judge held the petition was not maintainable. Guiding itself by a recent Division Bench order, the court dismissed the plea, emphasizing that Section 156(3) and Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. must be exhausted first.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to work out remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

R.Narayana Samy Reddy Vs the State Rep.by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.09.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.15034 of 2020

¶6

R.Narayana Samy Reddy,
M/aged about 70 years,
S/o.Raja Reddy,
Kakkangarai Village & Post,
Thiruppathur Taluk & District. ... Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
1. The State Represented by
The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppathur District,
Thiruppathur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kandili Police Station,
Thiruppathur District. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2 nd respondent police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 16.04.2020.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan

¶9

For Respondents: Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 2 nd respondent police to register an FIR on the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.04.2020.

¶11

2. Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ references in the following manner, while

¶14

giving certain directions: (i) Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be 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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

(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.”

¶27

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.

¶28

With the above direction, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gbi
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppathur District,
Thiruppathur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kandili Police Station,
Thiruppathur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.15034 of 2020

¶30

SVI(CO) GMY(21/10/2020)

¶31

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

R.Narayana Samy Reddy v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Narayana Samy Reddy v. the State Rep.by

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

Selvaraj Textiles Vs the Superintendent Police

M.Anandhi Vs the Commissioner of Police

A.Mayilvahanan Vs The Inspector of Police

Rasu @ Ulagasamidurai Vs the State

M.K.Stalin M/47 Vs The Commissioner of Police

S.Jagadeeshkumar Vs The Inspector of Police