Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

S. Saritha Devi vs The State Rep. By

Madras High Court|25 July, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The grievance of the petitioner is that her complaint dated 23.05.2017 has not been investigated till date.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the person named in the FIR is a police constable and he is also driver for the Assistant Commissioner of Police, St.Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai.
3. Nevertheless, having faith on the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking for direction to register her case .
4. When the matter called, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the defcto complainant had not co-operated with the enquiry, the complaint came to be closed. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she had responded to the summons and appeared before the respondent police.
5. In this background, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to take the pending complaint dated 23.05.2017 and conduct the investigation in the following manner;
1). If the information received by the first respondent discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, the same shall be forthwith registered.
2). If an information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, the first respondent shall conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed therein or not and such inquiry shall be completed within a period of seven days from the date of information.
3). If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the 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 week.
5). All information relating to cognizable offences whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading an inquiry must be reflected in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the first respondent's police station. M.S.RAMESH. J., ak
5. With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.
25.07.2017 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ak To
1. The Inspector of Police, E-5, Pattinapakkam Police Station, Chennai  28.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.13877 of 2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

S. Saritha Devi vs The State Rep. By

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
25 July, 2017