Wednesday, 03, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

L.Indrani vs The Superintendent Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 15092 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15092 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 September, 2022

Madras High Court
L.Indrani vs The Superintendent Of Police on 9 September, 2022
                                                                                 W.P.No.20010 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.20010 of 2021

                1.L.Indrani                                                ... Petitioner
                                                         Vs.
                1.The Superintendent of Police,
                  The Superintendent of Police office,
                  Karuppa Gaundanpalayam,
                  Tiruppur – 641 604.

                2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                  The Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                  Udumalaipet Ho, Udumalaipet – 642126.

                3.The Inspector of Police,
                  Dhali Police Station,
                  Udumalaipet, Tiruppur District.

                4.M/s.Premier Cotton Textiles,
                  Chinnapappanuthu, Pulankinar, (PO),
                  Udumalpet – 642122.                                      ... Respondents

                (R4 Suo motu Impleaded            vide    order   dated   21/09/2021        made   in
                WP.No.20010/2021)



                Prayer:- This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the
                complaint and take action based on the petition given by the petitioner dated
                24.08.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                1/6
                                                                                 W.P.No.20010 of 2021

                                      For Petitioner     : Mr.M.Venkatesh Kumar
                                      For R1 to R3       : Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                         Additional Public Prosecutor
                                      For R4             : M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.


                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the first

respondent to consider the complaint and take action based on the petition

given by the petitioner dated 24.08.2021.

2.Heard Mr.M.Venkatesh Kumar, 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.M.Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the police has not taken any action on the complaint 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 he can 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.20010 of 2021

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.

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

W.P.No.20010 of 2021

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 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.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.20010 of 2021

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.

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

1.The Superintendent of Police, The Superintendent of Police office, Karuppa Gaundanpalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, The Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalaipet Ho, Udumalaipet – 642126.

3.The Inspector of Police, Dhali Police Station, Udumalaipet, Tiruppur District.

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

W.P.No.20010 of 2021

R.N.MANJULA, J.

Dua

W.P.No.20010 of 2021

09.09.2022

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter