P.Vivek vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 16796 Mad

                                                                          W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 26.10.2022

                                                       Coram

                                  The HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                               W.P. No. 23951 of 2021
                                        and W.M.P. Nos.25270 & 25271 of 2021

                    P.Vivek                                                       .. Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                    1. The Inspector of Police,
                       R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station,
                       Chennai – 600 087.

                    2. The Commissioner of Police,
                       Office of the Commissioner of Police,
                       E.V.K. Sampath Salai, Vepery,
                       Chennai – 600 007.

                    3. The Inspector of Police,
                       Fake Document Prevention Wing,
                       Central Crime Branch,
                       Office of the Commissioner of Police,
                       E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery,
                       Chennai – 600 007.

                    4. T.Rajaneesh                                             .. Respondents




                    Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

                              Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                    praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in
                    the communication dated 09.01.2020 passed by the third respondent police
                    and quash the same as unsustainable in the eyes of law and direct the third
                    respondent to register a case against the fourth respondent based on the
                    complaint dated 18.09.2019 given by the petitioner and investigate the same
                    and further direct the second respondent to supervise the progress of the
                    investigation by the third respondent.


                                   For Petitioner            :   Mr. R.Arunkumar
                                   For Respondents 1-3       :   Mr. A.Damodaran
                                                                 Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                         ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of

certiorafied mandamus to call for the records in the communication dated

09.01.2020 passed by the third respondent police and quash the same as

unsustainable in the eyes of law and direct the third respondent to register a

case against the fourth respondent based on the complaint dated 18.09.2019

given by the petitioner and investigate the same and further direct the second

respondent to supervise the progress of the investigation by the third

respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a complaint has

been given by the petitioner on 18.09.2019 to the third respondent police but

the third respondent police has not conducted any enquiry and directed the

petitioner to get a direction from the Court.

3. Records would show that the third respondent had closed the

complaint by stating that the fourth respondent has also given a complaint on

which FIR has been registered in Cr. No.328 of 2019 for the offences under

Section 294B, 323, 427 and 506 (ii) IPC. The impugned communication has

been given by taking into consideration of the earlier order of this Court dated

19.12.2018 made in Crl.O.P. No.29802 of 2018. In the said order, it has been

observed that the respondent police shall not interfere in a dispute which is

civil nature and shall advise the parties and relegate them to the appropriate

forum. The said Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the fourth

respondent against the respondent police to not to harass him. The very same

fourth respondent has filed a contempt petition in Cont.P. No.1201 of 2019 by

alleging that the respondent police has violated the order of this Court dated

19.12.2018 made in Crl.O.P. No.29802 of 2018 and harassed him. However,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

the said petition was closed on the observation that FIR has been registered in

Cr. No.328 of 2019 against the fourth respondent and others.

4. The petitioner has also given the complaint for the same reasons as

stated above. However, the petitioner appears to have given an another

complaint on the allegation of forgery. No action has been taken on the same

by stating the reasons in the order passed in Crl.O.P. No.29802 of 2018. Even

in the contempt petition, the Court has taken into consideration of the case

registered on the complaint given by the very same petitioner against the

fourth respondent. The above facts would show that somehow the police had

interfered and a criminal case has been registered .

5. Under such circumstances, the impugned complaint now sought to be

given by the petitioner could have been considered by the third respondent

independently to find out whether a case has been made out. Instead of that,

the third respondent had chosen to sent a communication stating that an order

of the Court is necessary in order to take further action in the complaint given

by the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

6. Since the allegations now made by the petitioner in the present

complaint is different, it is obligatory on the part of the third respondent to

make an enquiry and do the needful in accordance with law. If for any

reasons, the petitioner is not satisfied with the action taken by the respondent

police, he is at liberty to avail the remedy contemplated under Section

154(3),156(3) and 200 Cr.P.C. and in accordance with the guidelines laid

down in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

G.Prabhakaran v. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur reported in

(2018) 2 LW Crl 489. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

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.

(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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

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.”

7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

26.10.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non-speaking order bkn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

R.N.MANJULA, J.,

bkn To:

1. The Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai – 600 087.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, E.V.K. Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

3. The Inspector of Police, Fake Document Prevention Wing, Central Crime Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Police, E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

W.P. No. 23951 of 2021

26.10.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis