Madras High CourtWP/31457/2017disposed of

S.Jamal v. The Director

2019-03-22Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.31457 of 2017 S.Jamal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director Revenue Intelligence, 7th Floor, D Block, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.

2.The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Union of India, 128-A, North Block, New Delhi.

3.The Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata Bhavan, A-Block, New Delhi-110 023.

4.The Chief Commissioner of Customs Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai- 600 001.

5.The Commissioner of Customs Airport & Air Cargo, GST Road, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027.

6.The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No.5-B,6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.

7.The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., SCB, "A"Wing, III Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai- 600 090.

8.The Regional Passport Officer, Royala Towers, 2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

9.Eldow, Superintendent of Customs, Anna International Airport, Chennai.

10.Venugopal, Superintendent of Customs, Anna International Airport, Chennai.

11.Faizal Ubayathullah Khan @ F.Ubayathulla ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the 1st respondent to entrust the complaint dated 04.10.2017, 31.10.2017 & 06.11.2017 of the petitioner to the 6th respondent and consequently direct the 6th respondent to register the complaints dated 04.10.2017, 31.10.2017 & 06.11.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Velu For Respondents: Mr.Sundareswaran For R4 & R5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 6th respondent police to register a case on the complaints of the petitioner dated 04.10.2017, 31.10.2017 & 06.11.2017. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

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, the petition of this nature is 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 theoffence, 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 his remedy in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision referred supra. 4.

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rri To 1.The Director Revenue Intelligence, 7th Floor, D Block, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.