Petitioner sought direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to register an FIR. Single Judge held petition not maintainable, citing Supreme Court rulings that FIR registration must be pursued via Section 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C., and disposed of the matter accordingly.
Cricket foresight prayer denied. Liberty to workout alternative remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.17494 of 2021
Mohamed Shahid
S/o.Mohamed Ishak ...Petitioner
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police District Police Office, Cuddalore.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police Anti Land Grabbing Special Wing Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2nd respondent to register the case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 31.08.2021, investigate the same and to file final report in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi For Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja Gov. Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference)
This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent Police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 31.08.2021 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent Police.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3.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 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.
4.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rpp/nr To
Cuddalore District.
CRL.O.P.No.17494 of 2021
PMK(CO) SP(20/10/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct registration of an FIR.
Whether the informant must avail alternative remedies under Section 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of approaching the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.Prabhakaran v. The Superintendent of Police, ThanjavurFollowed¶17
G.Prabhakaran v. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur reported in (2018) 2 LW
M. Subramaniam v. S. JanakiFollowed¶17
M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki reported in (2020) 5 CTC 464
Sakiri Vasu CaseReferred¶17
Sakiri Vasu Case
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohamed Shahid
Superintendent of Police District Police Office, Cuddalore
Sub Inspector of Police Anti Land Grabbing Special Wing Cuddalore, Cuddalore District
M. Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
