Dismissed

Rajesh v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2022CRL OP/4126/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to register an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The single judge held the petition was not maintainable, relying on precedents stating the Supreme Court has barred High Courts from issuing such directions under Section 482, mandating seeking relief under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed holding that direction for FIR registration cannot be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; alternate remedy under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. enunciated.

Rajesh Vs Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.02.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.4126 OF 2022

¶6

R.Rajesh, S/o.Robin Myne ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, P-6 Police Station, Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER:

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police to register the complaint and file an FIR on the basis of the complaint in CSR No.2240 of 2021 dated on 22.12.2021.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Pratap

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate (criminal side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent police to register the complaint and file an FIR on the basis of the complaint in CSR No.2240 of 2021 dated on 22.12.2021.

¶15

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

This petition is not maintainable, in view of the Order passed by a Hon'ble 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

¶17

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

¶18

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 Hon'ble Division Bench in the order referred supra.

¶19