M.Karthikeyan vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 16735 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 16735 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 October, 2022

Madras High Court

M.Karthikeyan vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 October, 2022

                                                                                Crl.O.P.No.25659 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.25659 of 2022
                     M.Karthikeyan                                   ...        Petitioner
                                                            /vs/

                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       Karamadai Police Station,
                       Karamadai, Coimbatore District.

                     2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Mettupalayam Division,
                       Mettupalayam,
                       Coimbatore District.

                     3.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Coimbatore (Rural) District,
                       Coimbatore.                                     ...   Respondents
                     Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C. to direct the respondents to comply with the direction issued by the
                     Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs State of Uttar
                     Pradesh & another reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 and register the complaint
                     dated 25.08.2022 and investigate the same in accordance with law.
                                     For Petitioner           ... Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy

                                     For Respondents          ... Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                                  Additional Public Prosecutor

                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.O.P.No.25659 of 2022

                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the

respondents to comply with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & another

reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 and register the complaint dated 25.08.2022

and investigate the same in accordance with law.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police

has not taken any action on the complaint given by the petitioner on

25.08.2022 and hence he is seeking a direction to file an FIR in this regard.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25659 of 2022

remedy available under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Hence the power of the

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., need not be invoked to direct the

respondent police to register an FIR. In the said judgment, the remedy open

to person aggrieved due to failure to register information is detailed 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25659 of 2022

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.

(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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25659 of 2022

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.”

5. 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. He is at liberty to

exhaust the above remedies.

6. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25659 of 2022

disposed.

20.10.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gsk/shk

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25659 of 2022

1.The Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Karamadai, Coimbatore District.