BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19/02/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR CRL.O.P.(MD).No.8464 of 2008 S.Uthaya Suriyan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Rep by Inspector of Police, Annanagar Police Station, Madurai District. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. ... Respondents Prayer Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to direct the first respondent to register a case in the petitioner's complaint dated 20.08.2008. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Manoharan ^For Respondents ... Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate(Crl.side) ****** :ORDER
Aggrieved by the non-registration of a case based on the complaint of the
petitioner herein dated 20.08.2008, the petitioner has come forward with this
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the first respondent
to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner date 20.08.2008.
2. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.V.Manoharan, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and by Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government
Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the
complaint lodged with the respondent police disclosed the commission of a
cognizable offence, they have not chosen to register a case and investigate the
same, even though, as per law it is mandatory on their part to do so.
4. In two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, one of a two Judge Bench
and the other of a three Judge Bench, the modalities available to such a
complainant for seeking redressal of his grievance have been dealt with. They
are:- (i) Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC);
and (ii) Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 490
(SC).
5. In Sakiri Vasu’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
remedy, in such cases, for the complainant was to approach the Superintendent of
Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and in case of inaction on his part also,
the complainant would approach the Judicial Magistrate by way of an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for a direction to investigate the matter. In
Aleque Padamsee’s case, it was held that in case of refusal on the part of the
police officials to register the case, even though the complaint disclosed a
cognizable offence, the modalities to be adopted by the complainant were as set
out in Section 190 r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C. Those two judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court came to be considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court
sitting in the Principal Bench (JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL) in G.Arokiya Marie v.
Superintendent of Police reported in 2008(2) MLJ (Crl) 796 and it was held
therein that the prohibition for entertaining a writ petition or a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to register a case was not
absolute and that in appropriate cases, namely cases of serious nature requiring
immediate action so as to prevent the evidence getting erased, such directions
would be issued. In all those cases, it was held in clear and unambiguous terms
that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. The above
said learned Single Judge of this Court has given some illustrations of the
cases (murder, attempt to murder wherein grievous injuries have been caused,
robbery, dacoity, rape and attempt to rape) in which, the inherent power of the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for directing the Station
House Officer to register the complaint.
6. When the ratio decidendi found in the above said judgments of the
Supreme Court, as interpreted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
G.Arokiya Marie’s case, is applied to the facts of the case, this Court has to
necessarily come to the conclusion that the offences alleged are not heinous
offences listed out in the above said judgment of the learned Single Judge of
this Court, which require immediate action without any loss of time to prevent
the evidence getting erased and thus, making the case an exceptional one, so
that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. Moreover, the
petitioner has not stated in the petition what offence was committed and under
what penal provision the act of the proposed accused becomes punishable.
Therefore, even if the offences listed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court
in G.Arokiya Marie’s case can be held illustrative and not exhaustive and in
appropriate cases, depending upon the peculiar facts of the case, the same can
be extended to other offences also, this Court is of the considered view that it
is not such a case wherein the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be
exercised in favour of the petitioner as an exceptional one.
7. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion
that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is
dismissed.
SML
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Annanagar Police Station,
Madurai District.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.