W.P.No.18725 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.18725 of 2021
S.Thirupurasundari
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Gummudipoondi 601 201.
... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to initiate suitable
criminal action against Sukumar for the offences mentioned in the complaint
dated 11.03.2021.
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Fidelia
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, APP
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent to initiate suitable criminal action against Sukumar for the offences mentioned in the complaint dated 11.03.2021.
1/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18725 of 2021
2. Heard Ms.N.Fidelia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials placed on record.
3. Ms.N.Fidelia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police has not taken any action on the complaint given by the petitioner and hence, suitable direction should be given to the respondent police.
4. The petitioner has got an efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and shall get appropriate order from the jurisdictional Magistrate himself. The learned Division Bench of this Court has already held in the case of G.Prabhakaran v. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 489 that there is an alternate efficacious remedy available under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Hence the power of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked in all circumstances. In the said judgment, it is held as under :
“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.2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18725 of 2021 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 conducting the preliminary enquiry, the Station House 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.
3/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18725 of 2021
(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 bring a case under the rarest of rare one.
The references stands ordered accordingly.” 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18725 of 2021
5. Since the petitioner has come to this Court without exhausting the remedy available under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., after observing the procedure contemplated in Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C., this petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate as stated above. No costs.
Index: Yes/No 07.09.2022
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
gsk
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Gummudipoondi 601 201.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18725 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
W.P.No.18725 of 2021
07.09.2022
6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis