Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 8]

Madras High Court

K.Kumari vs The District Superintendent Of Police on 7 August, 2017

Author: M.S.Ramesh

Bench: M.S.Ramesh

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :07.08.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

Crl.O.P.No.15109 of 2017

K.Kumari			         				     ...   Petitioner 

Vs   

1.The District Superintendent of Police,
   Vellore Taluk,
   Vellore.

2.The Inspector of Police,
   Thimiri Police Station, 
   Thimiri, Arcot Taluk,
   Vellore District.


3.Mr.Sundaramoorthy,
   Sub Inspector of Police,
   Thimiri Police Station, 
   Thimiri, Arcot Taluk,
   Vellore District.		   	  	 		         ...   Respondents


Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the second respondent to register the FIR in complaint dated 19/05/2017 lodged by the petitioner as against the alleged accused namely Selvakumar, Samykannu, Saraswathi and other involved accused and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take disciplinary action against the 3rd respondent for committing unethical acts.
		For Petitioner      : 	M/s.S.P.Arthi

		For Respondent	:	Mr.P.Govindarajan, APP
						For R1 and R2.

						No appearance 
						For R3.


ORDER    

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to register a case on the basis of a complaint given by the petitioner dated 19.05.2017.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a complaint given by her on 19.05.2017 to the second respondent, the same has been kept in abeyance without any action. It is well settled in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2013 (6) CTC 353], that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if an information furnished to the police officer disclose commission of a cognizable offence and in cases where the information does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted.

4.The respondent is not justified in having received the complaint and keeping it unattended without any further action. In view of the same, the petitioner has made out a case for this Court to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, the second respondent is directed as follows:

1)If the information received by the second respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.
2)If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the second respondent shall conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed therein or not and such inquiry shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of information.
3)If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered.
4)If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the disclosure report must be recorded along with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be furnished to the complainant within one week.
5)All information relating to cognizable offences whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading an inquiry must be reflected in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the second respondent's police station.

5.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions.

07.08.2017 Index:Yes/No mfa To

1.The District Superintendent of Police, Vellore Taluk, Vellore.

2.Inspector of Police, Thimiri Police Station, Thimiri, Arcot Taluk, Vellore District.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.S.RAMESH.J, mfa Crl.O.P.No.15109 of 2017 07.08.2017