Madras High Court
K.Ravichandran vs The District Superintendent Of Police on 23 April, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.10626 of 2019
K.Ravichandran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Superintendent of Police,
Salem District,
Nethilimedu, Salem-636 002.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Land Grabbing Cell,
O/o. The District Superintendent of Police,
Nethilimedu, Salem-636 002.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Land Grabbing Cell,
O/o. The District Superintendent of Police,
Nethilimedu, Salem-636 002. .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to direct the 3rd respondent police to forthwith investigate,
register a case and file final report on the complaint lodged by the petitioner
dated 31.03.2019 in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent police to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated http://www.judis.nic.in31.03.2019. 2
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents.
3. In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13681 of 2018 and batch of cases, dated 20.09.2018, the petition of this nature is not maintainable before this Court. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herewith:-
“35.Accordingly, we answer the references in the following manner, while giving certain directions:
(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in all circumstances.
(ii) It is not an alternative remedy to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but a repository of inherent power.
(iii) The normal course of remedy on a failure or refusal to record the information is Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after due compliance of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.
(iv) A petition can be filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court only after the completion of 15 days from the date of receipt of the information by the Station House Officer. The Registry shall not receive any petition before the expiry of 15 days aforesaid.
(v) No petition shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.
(vi) An informant can send substance of the information to the Superintendent of Police on knowing the decision of the Station House Officer in not registering the case and proceeding with the preliminary enquiry. After http://www.judis.nic.in conducting the preliminary enquiry, the Station House 3 Officer's decision in either registering the compliant or closing it will have to be intimated to the informant immediately and in any case not later than 7 days. Once such a decision is made, the informant cannot invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C.as the remedy lies elsewhere.
(vii) The directions issued by the Director General of Police in the circulars referred are to be strictly complied with by all the Station House Officers.
(viii) The affidavit to be filed shall contain particulars regarding the date of complaint, receipt and the date of sending substances of the information to the superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and its receipt. The Registry shall not number any petition without due compliance.
(ix) This Court is not bound to direct the police to register the complaint in all cases not withstanding the breach of time table furnished in Lalitha Kumari's case.
(x) The judicial Magistrates, while dealing the petitions under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C. are directed to keep in mind the narratives in Lalitha Kumari's case with specific reference to the cases, which might require a preliminary enquiry before issuing a direction to investigate and after careful perusal of the complaint. The other directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Sugesan Transport's case are upheld.
(xi) Eschewing Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is only on exceptional and rarest of rare cases. Monstrosity of the offence, extreme official apathy and indifference, need to answer the judicial conscience, and existence of hostile environment are few of the factors to be borne in mind to http://www.judis.nic.in bring a case under the rarest of rare one.” 4 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rri However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision referred supra.
4. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
23.04.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rri To
1.The District Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Nethilimedu, Salem-636 002.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Land Grabbing Cell, O/o. The District Superintendent of Police, Nethilimedu, Salem-636 002.
3.The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Cell, O/o. The District Superintendent of Police, Nethilimedu, Salem-636 002.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.10626 of 2019