Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
JOSE JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 1178 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MOHAMED YOUSEFF T M, SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SRI.SHOUKATH HUSAIN, SMT.AKHEELA FARZANA, SHRI.ASHIQ HUSSAIN
For the Respondents: SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER R4 TO R6, SHRI.BONNY BABY, CGC, SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS, SHRI.HARIMOHAN, SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP

Police are mandated to register FIRs when a cognizable offense is disclosed, regardless of the nationality of involved parties.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case revolves around the legal obligation of the police to register an FIR when a cognizable offense is disclosed. Facts: The petitioner alleged coercion and intimidation from foreign nationals which warranted action from law enforcement. Findings: The court acknowledges that if a complaint reveals a cognizable offense, the police must act.

Issues: The central question involves the duties of the police in response to complaints, particularly when foreign nationals are involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the police's responsibility to register FIRs in accordance with the law regarding cognizable offenses.

Result: The respondent No.3 is directed to take a decision on Ext.P2 complaint in accordance with law, within a period of one month.

Table of Content
1. complaint filed necessitating police action. (Para 1)
2. response from the prosecutor regarding fir registration constraints. (Para 2)
3. court's directive on handling the complaint. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 complaint to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. His grievance is that no action has been taken on it.

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned Prosecutor submitted that since the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are foreign nationals, no FIR can be registered. However, going by Ext.P2 complaint, there is specific allegation against the respondent No.6 as well. The allegation is that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 along with the respondent No.6 are coercing and intimidating the petitioner through his son to squeeze money from him. Needless to say, if the complaint discloses any congnizable offence, the police is bound to register FIR. Hence, the respondent No.3 is directed to take a decision on Ext.P2 complaint in accordance with law, within a period of one month.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMDR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJOSE JOHN – AppellantVersusTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE – RespondentWP(CRL.) NO. 1178 OF 2025

Police are mandated to register FIRs when a cognizable offense is disclosed, regardless of the nationality of involved parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
JOSE JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 1178 OF 2025