Dismissed

Balasubramaniam v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC21 Oct 2021CRL OP/19208/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct registration of a case is not maintainable. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that the informant must approach the police under Section 154(3) or seek summons under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file petition under Section 482 to direct registration of FIR denied; petition dismissed.

Balasubramaniam Vs State Rep.by Its — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.19208 OF 2021

¶6

Mr.Balasubramaniam ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Rep. by its, The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police,

¶9

Tirupur District.

¶10

The Inspector of Police (Crime), North Police Station, Tirupur District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER:-

¶13

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the case in respect of the petitioner's complaint dated 02.10.2021.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalimuthu

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the case in respect of the petitioner's complaint dated 02.10.2021.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

This petition is not maintainable, in view of the Order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in G.Prabhakaran v. The

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22