Madras High Court
Susadima Amarolpam vs The Director General Of Police And The ... on 14 November, 2006
Author: K. Chandru
Bench: K. Chandru
ORDER K. Chandru, J.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to investigate into the crime and take action against the culprit.
2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. G. Ramachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Thangavelu, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents.
3. The complaint dated 26.8.2006 given by one R. Shankar to the second respondent Inspector of Police clearly discloses a cognizable offence and there is no reason as to why the respondents can show any complacency in a matter of this nature. The only argument of the learned Government Advocate was that while the incident was dated 12.8.2006, the complaint was given only on 26.8.2006. Therefore, there is inordinate delay.
4. It is seen from the said complaint that Maria Natchathiram, mother of one Cracil Mary died only on 23.8.2006. The question of lodging a complaint and the unexplained delay cannot be a ground to refuse to register the First Information Report. Only if the offence is investigated properly, the delay also can be made known to the authorities.
5. In this context it is necessary to refer to the following two decisions of the Supreme Court.
(i) In 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal in paragraph 33 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.
(ii) The same view has been reiterated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. and in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Court held as follows:
The views expressed by this Court in paras 31, 32 and 33 as quoted above leave no manner of doubt that the provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the officer concerned is duty-bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.
6. In the light of the above, there is no discretion vested with the respondents in refusing to register the First Information Report and proceed with the investigation. Therefore, a direction is issued to the first respondent to direct the second respondent to register a First Information Report on the basis of the complaint dated 26.8.2006 and, thereafter nominate an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter and file a final report within a period of three months from today. A compliance report shall be sent to the Registry of this Court on the expiry of three months.
7. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.