Madras High Court
S.Praveen Kumar vs / on 20 October, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.25622 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P.No.25622 of 2022
S.Praveen Kumar ... Petitioner
/vs/
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Kanakamma Chatram Police Station,
Tiruvallur District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to register the case on the complaint given
by the petitioner dated 08.04.2022 and proceed with the investigation.
For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Elangovan
For Respondent ... Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the
respondent to register the case on the complaint given by the petitioner
dated 08.04.2022 and proceed with the investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25622 of 2022
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of
job racketing and in which, FIR ought to have been registered; hence he is
seeking a suitable direction to the respondent police to register the FIR on
the complaint given by the petitioner on 08.04.2022.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent submitted that the petition enquiry has been conducted on the
complaint given by the petitioner and the same has been closed on
20.04.2022.
5. The petitioner has got an efficacious alternate remedy under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to 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 when there is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25622 of 2022
alternate efficacious remedy available under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., the
power of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked. 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25622 of 2022
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.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25622 of 2022
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.”
6. In view of the above direction, the Registry ought not to have
taken the case on file without placing the matter on the point of
maintainability. 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.
7. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is
disposed.
20.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
gsk/shk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25622 of 2022
R.N.MANJULA ,J.
gsk/shk
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kanakamma Chatram Police Station,
Tiruvallur District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.25622 of 2022
20.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
