Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1387
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
K. Muniyandi - Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar & Others - Respondents
W.P(MD) No. 759 of 2016 & WMP(MD) No. 585 of 2016
Decided On : 12-01-2016
For the Petitioner:R. Narayanan, Advocate
For the Respondents:S. Chandrasekar, Government Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Police to adhere to the principles and directions of the Honourable Apex Court in enquiring into complaints, registering and investigating prima facie cases, and providing the complainant with an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.
Headnote:
Writ of Mandamus - Police Enquiry - Adherence to Principles and Directions of Honourable Apex Court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take action on a complaint lodged by the petitioner against certain individuals.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the third respondent Police to enquire into the veracity of the complaint in adherence to the principles and directions laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others, and complete the same within a specified period. If a prima facie case is found, the complaint should be registered and investigated. The complainant should be heard before a decision is made. If the complaint is closed, the Police must provide a copy of the closure report to the petitioner, who can then choose to make a private complaint or take recourse to other provisions of law.
Issues: Enquiry into complaint, adherence to principles and directions of Honourable Apex Court, registration and investigation of complaint, hearing of complainant, closure of complaint, provision for private complaint or recourse to other provisions of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the principles and directions laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others, which require the Police to enquire into complaints and complete the same within a specified period, register and investigate prima facie cases, and provide the complainant with an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made. The Court also emphasized the provision for the complainant to make a private complaint or take recourse to other provisions of law in case of closure of the complaint.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondents 4 and 5.
2. The Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police, on instructions, would submit that the complaint has been received by the respondent Police and the same will be enquired into and if any prima facie case is made out, the said complaint would be registered and the investigation would be completed.
3. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is inclined to direct the third respondent to enquire into the veracity of the complaint in adherence to the principles and directions laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in 2013(4) Crimes 243 (SC) and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the respondent Police finding any prima facie case in the complaint of the petitioner, they shall register a case within a period of one week thereafter. Before taking a decision in one way or the other, the complainant should be heard.
4. In case of closure of complaint, the third respondent Police is directed to send a copy of the closure report to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of closure. On receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioner either to make a private complaint or recourse to any other provisions of law.
5. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
