T.V.Deepa v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:30.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.11918 & 11920 of 2019 T.V.Deepa ... Petitioner in both Petitions Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, Mangadu, Chennai - 600 122.

... Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.11918 of 2019 The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station, Kundrathur, Chennai - 600 069.

... Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.11920 of 2019 PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.11918 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent to file the FIR towards the complaint dated 17.02.2016 bearing CSR.No.246 of 2016 and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.11920 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent to register the complaint dated 16.04.2018 and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.

For Petitioner in both petitions : Mr.T.Gowthaman For Respondent in both petitions :Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor.

C O M M O N O R D E R These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking direction to the respondent to register the case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.02.2016 and 16.04.2018 respectively and investigate the same in accordance with law.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner's and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3.

In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13681 of 2018 and batch of cases, dated 20.09.2018, these petitions of this nature are not maintainable before this Court. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herewith:- "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 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."

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out her remedy in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision referred supra.

4.

With the above observations, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mpa

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, Mangadu, Chennai - 600 122.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station, Kundrathur, Chennai - 600 069.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+2ccs to Mr.T.Gowthaman , Advocate SR.No. 43092,43091 Crl.O.P.Nos.11918 & 11920 of 2019 A.SK(10/06/2019)