IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.No.17409 of 2021 Bhavani ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.

2. The Inspector of Police, AWPS (East), Puliyankulam, Coimbatore.

3. Sivan

4. Chithirai Chairman

5. Patturaj ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5 herein on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.C.Rathinavel Pandian For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of writ of mandamus to issue a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action based on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.2021.

2. The petitioner had given a complaint to the second respondent police by alleging that her minor daughter was sexually abused by a person under the pretext of love. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken by the second respondent and hence she had filed a complaint seeking order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in C.M.P. No.8722 of 2021. The learned Magistrate has passed an order on 26.03.2021 in C.M.P. No.8722 of 2021 by stating that the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and hence the petition should be filed before the proper forum.

3. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner has not filed any petition before the appropriate forum. Instead, this Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction against the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action. In this regard it is relevant to refer the judgment held in the case of G.Prabhakaran vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 489. In the said judgment, it is held as under :

“35. Accordingly, we answer the references in the following manner, while giving certain directions:

(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in all circumstances. (ii) It is not an alternative remedy to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but a repository of inherent power.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

(v) No petition shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.

(vi) 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.

(vii) 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.

(viii) 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.

(ix) This Court is not bound to direct the police to register the complaint in all cases not withstanding the breach of time table furnished in Lalitha Kumari's case.

(x) The judicial Magist