Dismissed

S.Munni v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC15 Mar 2021WP/15547/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a writ petition directing police registration of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that the High Court cannot issue such directions and the petitioner must avail alternative statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to exercise alternative remedies under Cr.P.C.

S.Munni Vs The Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P. No.15547 of 2020 and WMP No.20580 of 2020

S.Munni

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi District.

¶10

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ulundurpet Taluk, Ulundurpet.

¶11

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Elavanasurkottai Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

¶12

4.Liyakath Ali Khan

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to enquire and take necessary action based on the complaints dt.28.09.2020 and 09.10.2020 given by the petitioner herein.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sharath Chandran

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor R 1 to R 3

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to enquire and take necessary action based on the complaints given by the petitioner on 28.09.2020 and 09.10.2020.

¶20

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3.

¶21

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

¶22

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 her remedy as per the directions issued by the Division Bench in the order referred supra.

¶23

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

KP To

¶28