Madras High Court
Seema Singh vs The Superintendent Of Police on 2 March, 2023
W.P.No.26665 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.26665 of 2021 and
W.M.P.No.28105 of 2021
Seema Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Chengalpattu District.
3.Mr.Jawahar Singh ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent without
transferring the complaint to Wellington Police Station lodged by the
petitioner on 20.07.2021 numbered as CSR No.265 of 2021 to conduct the
speedy enquiry consequent to that to register FIR against the third
respondent under Sections 498(A), 406 and 34 of IPC and under Section 4
o the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, within the time frame as fixed by this
Court.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26665 of 2021
For Petitioner ... Ms.R.Nasrine
For Respondents ... Mr.A.Gopinath,
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1,R2
Mr.A.V.Arun for R3
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent
without transferring the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 20.07.2021
numbered as CSR No.265 of 2021, to Wellington Police Station and to
conduct a speedy enquiry and register an FIR against the third respondent
under Sections 498(A), 406 and 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, within the time frame as fixed by this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first and second
respondents and the learned counsel for the third respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
had given a complaint against the third respondent by making serious
allegations of marital cruelty; despite the same, the respondent police
without taking any due action just siding with the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26665 of 2021
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
first and second respondents submitted that the complaint has already been
transferred to All Women Police Station, Coonoor, as the cause of action for
the complaint had arisen there; even while filing WMP No.28105 of 2021,
the petitioner is aware of the fact that the complaint has already been
transferred during the pendency of the Writ Petition itself.
5. The petitioner had made an endorsement that she had the
knowledge about the transfer of the complaint to Wellington. But now it is
clarified that the complaint has actually been transferred to All Women
Police Station, Coonoor. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite she
had lodged the complaint as early as on 20.07.2021, so far as no FIR has
been registered. For the said grievance, the petitioner has got an efficacious
remedy under Sections 154(3) or 156(3) Cr.P.C. In this regard, it is relevant
to refer the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court held in the
case of G.Prabhakaran v. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur
reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 489. In the said judgment, it is held that
there is an alternate efficacious remedy available under Section 156 (3) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26665 of 2021
Cr.P.C. On the above subject, this Court has already set down the law 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26665 of 2021
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
careful perusal of the complaint. The other directions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26665 of 2021
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. Now the complaint has been transferred to the file of All Women
Police Station, Coonoor and pending for enquiry in CSR No.256 of 2021.
In view of the same, I feel it is appropriate to impress the Inspector of
Police, All Women Police Station, Coonoor, to complete the enquiry in CSR
No.256 of 2021 within a period of two weeks and do the needful in
accordance with law.
7. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed and the
Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Coonoor, is directed to
complete the enquiry in CSR No.256 of 2021 within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and do the needful in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26665 of 2021
accordance with law. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of
the enquiry done by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,
Coonoor, she is at liberty to exhaust the remedy available under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C., after observing the procedure contemplated in Section
154(3) of Cr.P.C. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
02.03.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
gsk
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Chengalpattu District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Coonoor,
The Nilgiris.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26665 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA ,J.
gsk
W.P.No.26665 of 2021 and
W.M.P.No.28105 of 2021
02.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
