Madras High Court
R.Ponnusamy vs The Superintendent Of Police on 9 September, 2022
W.P.No.20118 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.20118 of 2021
R.Ponnusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore Rural District,
District Police Office,
Railway Station Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Respondent
Prayer:- This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and dispose
the representation 20.07.2021, made by the petitioner on to the respondent on
merits in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnamurthy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent to
consider and dispose the representation dated 20.07.2021, made by the
petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20118 of 2021
2.Heard Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent and perused the materials placed on record.
3.Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the police has not taken any action on the representation 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 when there is an 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20118 of 2021
(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.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20118 of 2021
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.”
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20118 of 2021
6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However,
the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the jurisdictional
Magistrate as stated above.
09.09.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking
Index : Yes/No
Dua
To
The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore Rural District,
District Police Office,
Railway Station Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20118 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Dua
W.P.No.20118 of 2021
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
