Dismissed

E.Nithya v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC16 Apr 2021CRL OP/7036/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner filed a criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking a direction to register an FIR. The High Court held the petition was not maintainable, relying on Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents which mandate that informants must approach police authorities or file complaints under Sections 154(3) or 156(3) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

None; liberty granted to petitioner to approach police authorities or file complaint under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) CrPC.

E.Nithya Vs the Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.04.2021

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶4

CRL.O.P.No.7036 of 2021

E.Nithya

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o Commissioner of Police,

¶9

Chennai.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, W-20, All Women Police Station, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. ... Respondent

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent to register FIR in view of the petitioner complaint dated 29.01.2021, within a time framed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Y.George Williams For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking a direction, to direct the second respondent to register FIR in view of the petitioner complaint dated 29.01.2021.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

4.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS III)

¶20

/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
klt
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
O/o Commissioner of Police,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
W-20, All Women Police Station,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.7036 of 2021
16.04.2021
KV(CO)
KKN 19.04.2021

¶21

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

E.Nithya v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Nithya v. the 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

S.Shreevidya Vs State by

Dhanalaskhmi Vs the State Rep. by Its

R.Dakshina Murthy Vs State Rep.by

Thilagar @ Venkat Vs The Director General of police

Saraswathi Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

V.Anandhan Vs the State Rep.by