0

Petition U/S 156(3) Shall Not Be Entertained Without Exhausting The Remedy U/S 154(3) Cr.P.C, Reiterates Madras HC [Read Order]

Author – Neha Agarwal (Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan)

Madras High Court case of C.Kumaravel v. The Director General of Police and ors., has reiterated that Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not an alternate remedy to Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C on refusal of police to register First Information Report on receipt of information regarding the commission of a Cognizable Case.

In the present case, Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner dated 3rd April, 2017.

CLICK HERE! TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP FOR DAILY LEGAL UPDATES

The Madras High Court headed by Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan has re-iterated the principles stated by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13681 of 2018. The Division Bench held that 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.

The Bench has directed the Magistrates that no petition shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.

CLICK HERE! TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP FOR DAILY LEGAL UPDATES

The court give the following directions:

  • Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in all circumstances.
  • It is not an alternative remedy to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but a repository of inherent power.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • No petition shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • This Court is not bound to direct the police to register the complaint in all cases notwithstanding the breach of time table furnished in Lalitha Kumari’s case.
  • 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.
  • 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 judge also said, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Division Bench

CLICK HERE! TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP FOR DAILY LEGAL UPDATES

Hence the Court said petition of the nature filed by petitioner was not maintainable before the court.

To Read the Order Click Here!

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *