Dismissed

R.Mohala v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC8 Oct 2021CRL OP/18470/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a Criminal Original Petition seeking direction to register an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The Court directed the petitioner to seek the alternative remedy available under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C., following recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to work out the alternative remedy under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

R.Mohala Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.10.2021 CORAM:

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶3

Crl.O.P.No.18470 of 2021

¶4

R.Mohala ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.

¶7

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.

¶8

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station, Panruti. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 3rd respondent to register an FIR in pursuance to the complaint of the Petitioner dated 22.04.2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Munusamy For Respondents: Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, Government Advocate (crl.side)

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition has been filed to direct the 3^rd respondent Police to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 22.04.2021.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme

¶16

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.

¶17

4.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly .

¶18