Dismissed

C.Prabhakaran v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC11 Mar 2022CRL OP/5624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Divided bench held the Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for directing FIR registration. The Court relied on its Division Bench judgment and Supreme Court rulings stating the informant must avail alternative remedies under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as it is not maintainable.

C.Prabhakaran Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.5624 OF 2022

C.Prabhakaran

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State rep by The Superintendent of Police, The Nilgiris, Ooty, Tamil Nadu. 2. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Pudumandu Police Station, The Nilgiris, Ooty, Tamil Nadu.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent police to register FIR based on the complaint dated 19.11.2021 made by the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.V.Meganathan, Government Advocate (criminal side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the second respondent police to register FIR based on the complaint dated 19.11.2021 made by the petitioner.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

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

¶17

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's 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 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.

¶18