Dismissed

S.Raja v. the Deputy Commissione of Police

Madras HC10 Nov 2021CRL OP/20495/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC to direct police registration of an FIR is not maintainable, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The petitioner was directed to seek alternative remedies under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to exit by appropriate remedy under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) CrPC.

S.Raja Vs the Deputy Commissione of Police — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.11.2021 CORAM:

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶3

Crl.O.P.No.20495 of 2021

¶4

S.Raja ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Madhavaram Police Station Madhavaram Chennai.

¶7

2.State Rep.by The Inspector of Police Madhavaram Police Station Chennai. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent police to register FIR on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 23.09.2021 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.J.Saravanan

¶10

For Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran for R1 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent police to register the First Information Report on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 23.09.2021 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

¶13

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

¶14

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶15

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.

¶16