Dismissed

Vimal Hari v. Deputy Commissioner of Police

Madras HC1 Feb 2021CRL OP/1369/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Original Petition challenging the refusal to register an FIR was dismissed. The court held the petition was not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner to approach police under Sections 154(3) or 156(3) of Cr.P.C. based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to avail alternative remedies under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

Vimal Hari Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 01.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1369 of 2021

¶6

Vimal Hari .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Cyber Crime Wing, Greater Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai-600 007. 2. The Inspector of Police, JJ Nagar, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai. .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent to register the FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 22.09.2020 vide CSR No.346 of 2020. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent to register the FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 22.09.2020 vide CSR No.346 of 2020.

¶9

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents Police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 22.09.2020, pending on the file of the second respondent Police.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

This petition is not maintainable, in view of the Order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in G.Prabhakaran v. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 489. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment rendered by a three Judge Bench in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki

¶12

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

¶13

reported in (2020) 5 CTC 464, after relying upon Sakiri Vasu Case, has categorically held that the High Court cannot issue any direction for registration of FIR in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the informant has to necessarily avail of the alternative remedy provided under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C., and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Liberty is given to the petitioner to workout his remedy as per the directions issued by the Division Bench in the order referred supra.

¶14

4.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rli
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Cyber Crime Wing,
Greater Chennai Police,
Egmore, Chennai-600 007.
2.The Inspector of Police,
JJ Nagar,
Greater Chennai Police,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶15

+1cc to Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, Advocate SR.5294

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.1369 of 2021 NRL(CO) CB(04/03/2021)

¶17

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

Vimal Hari v. Deputy Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Hari v. Deputy Commissioner 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

R.Anandhan Vs Mr. Muthukrishnan

Elumalai Vs the State Rep.by

N.K.Kannan Vs State Rep. by

V.Punithavalli Vs the Inspector of Police

Lokesh Vs State Rep by

S.Muruganantham Vs the Superindent of Police