Madras High Court
Arutchelvi Kasinathan vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police on 6 July, 2021
1 Crl.O.P.No. 9843 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No. 9843 of 2021
Arutchelvi Kasinathan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
T.Nagar Circle,
(Teynampet Range),
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
3. The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Chennai - 600 018. ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct
the respondents to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 24.05.2021
without any further delay.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2 Crl.O.P.No. 9843 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.S. Senthil Nathan
For Respondents : Mr.A. Damodharan
Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side)
----
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking direction
to the respondents to register the complaint filed by the petitioner dated
24.05.2021, pending on the file of the respondent police.
2. By consent, the Criminal Original Petition itself is taken up for
final disposal.
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:
http://www.judis.nic.in
(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
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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
(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
bring a case under the rarest of rare one.”
http://www.judis.nic.in
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.
06.07.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
msm
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
T.Nagar Circle,
(Teynampet Range),
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
3. The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Chennai - 600 018.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
msm
Crl.O.P.No. 9843 of 2021
06.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
