Madras High Court
Paulraj vs The Superintendent Of Police on 9 April, 2025
W.P(MD)No.9952 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P(MD)No.9952 of 2025
Paulraj
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the
respondents 1 and 2 herein to take action based on the petitioners
complaint dated 04.02.2022 in light of Crl.M.P. No.18632/2022 on the
file of Judicial Magistrate No.II Dindigul, by considering the petitioners
representation dated 18.02.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Aruljenifer
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi (R1,R2)
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
W.P(MD)No.9952 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2
herein to take action based on the petitioner's complaint dated
04.02.2022 in light of Crl.M.P. No.18632/2022 on the file of Judicial
Magistrate No.II Dindigul, by considering the petitioner's representation
dated 18.02.2025.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate Court through Crl.MP No.
18632 of 2022 under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and the same was
forwarded to the second respondent. However, without considering the
same, the second respondent has simply conducted enquiry and closed
the same. Once the learned Magistrate passed the order under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C, it is the duty of the second respondent to register a case
and conduct investigation and based on the investigation, they have to
file a final report. Without registering an FIR, they simply closed the
complaint. Therefore the report is not in accordance with law. Hence,
this petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police would submit that the petitioner has filed a petition
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Dindigul and the same was forwarded to the second respondent. In that
order the learned Magistrate stated that if the information received from
the petitioner discloses, commission of cognizable offence, then the
same shall be registered as FIR. If an information received does not
disclose a cognizable offence, the Officer shall conduct preliminary
enquiry and ascertain whether cognizable offence disclosed or not.
Based on the order, they have conducted preliminary enquiry and
thereafter, closed the same.
4.Heard the learned counsels appearing on both sides and
perused the materials available on record.
5.On perusal of records the petitioner approached the
learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the same was
forwarded to the second respondent. As far as the petition filed under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, it is for the learned Magistrate has to pass
orders, after applying mind. If there are prima facie materials to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
constitute the offence, then the same can be forwarded to the respondent
police otherwise he has to dismiss the same. However, the learned
Magistrate without applying mind, passed an order with the following
conditions:
1. If the information received from the petitioner discloses,
commission of cognizable offence, then the same shall be
registered as FIR.
2. If an information received does not disclose a cognizable
offence, the Officer shall conduct preliminary enquiry
and ascertain whether cognizable offence disclosed or
not.
3. If the inquiry disclosed commission of a cognizable
offence, then FIR must be registered.
4. If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint
the disclosure report must be recorded along with the
reasonings and a copy of the same shall be furnished to
the complainant within one month.
5. All information relating to cognizable offence whether
resulting in registration of Fir or leading an enquiry must
be reflected in the general diary/station diary/daily dairy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
of the respondent police station.
6.Therefore, the above said order of the Judicial Magistrate
itself is not in accordance with law and the Judicial Magistrate ought to
have forwarded the same to the second respondent for registering FIR,
after confirming that there are prima facie materials, otherwise, he has to
dismiss the same. Without doing the same, he has passed the aforesaid
order, which is not in accordance with law.
7.Though the present petition is filed only to take action
based on the complaint of the petitioner in the light of the order of the
learned Magistrate passed in Crl.M.P(MD) No. 18632 of 2022 and the
order of the learned Magistrate is not challenged, This Court in order to
meet the ends of justice, inclined to quash the orders of the Judicial
Magistrate.
8.Once the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, it is the duty of the police to register a
case. They need not conduct another preliminary enquiry. The enquiry
conducted by the police is not in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
9.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the following judgments:
(i)Hemant Yashwant Dhage Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 273;
(ii) Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan and another reported in
(2006) 1 SCC 627 and
(iii)Saravanan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thirupattur
Town Police Station, in Crl.R.C.No.1527 of 2022 on the file of this
Court.
10.On careful perusal of the above said judgments, it is clear
that the registration of FIR involves only the process of entering the
substance of the information relating to the commission of the
cognizance offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police
station. Even if a Magistrate does not say in any words while directing
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C that an FIR should be
registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to
register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the
complainant. In the case on hand also the learned Magistrate passed
order in the petitioner filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
forwarded the complaint to the S.H.O. while so, the SHO ought to have
registered FIR. After receipt of the complaint from the Court under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, once again, the police cannot conduct enquiry.
Therefore, it is the duty of the second respondent to register an FIR and
investigate the case.
11.In view of the aforesaid discussions, the enquiry report
and the order, dated 04.02.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.18632/2022 on
the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II Dindigul are hereby set aside and the
matter is remanded back to concerned Judicial Magistrate with a
direction to consider the complaint of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.
18632/2022 afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
12.With the above observations and direction, this Writ
Petition is disposed of.
09.04.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
09.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 12:24:32 pm )
