When can Section 482, CrPC be invoked to direct the registration of FIRs? Madras HC answers

The Madras High Court has recently reiterated that the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be routinely invoked to direct the police to register First Information Reports (FIRs)..The Madurai Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Sathish Kumar clarified that this extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked in such cases, only after the aggrieved complainant exhausts available statutory remedies under Sections 154 (3) and 156 (3) of the CrPC..Ordinarily, when a cognizable offence is made out and communicated, the police is bound to register an FIR under Section 154 (1) and complete investigation in a time-bound manner. This was laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh..The question before the Court was regarding the appropriate remedy available when the police refuse/fail in its duty to register the FIR. As regards such cases, a conflict had emerged between two decisions on whether Section 482 of the CrPC could be invoked right away..In Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd v The Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Court held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be ordinarily invoked to direct the registration of police cases. However, the Court also carved out certain contingent scenarios when Section 482 may be invoked, once other statutory remedies have been exhausted..On the other hand, in K Reghupathy v The Commissioner of Police, the Court held that Section 482 can be invoked for a direction to the police to register the complaint, though it cannot circumvent the time table prescribed in the Lalita Kumari’s case.While answering a reference made in light of this apparent conflict, the Madurai Bench echoed the view taken in the Sugesan Transport case that Section 482 should be used sparingly..The Court therefore directed that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked in all circumstances. It is not an alternative remedy to Section 156(3) CrPC but a repository of inherent power..The ordinary remedial course to be followed in cases where the concerned police officer refuses or fails to record an FIR under Section 154 (1) of the CrPC was laid down as follows:.– On a failure or refusal of the Station House Officer (SHO) to record an FIR, the aggrieved complainant may make a representation to the Superintendent of police under Section 154 (3) of the CrPC. As per this provision, the Superintendent is bound to either investigate the offence himself or direct his subordinate to conduct the investigation. The Court noted that such an investigation cannot be carried out unless the FIR is first registered, even though Section 154 (3) does not expressly mention such registration..– If the police authorities refuse to act in terms of Section 154 (3), then the aggrieved person can move the Magistrate’s court under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. This provision empowers the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police..– The judicial Magistrates, while dealing the petitions under Sections 156(3) CrPC should 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..However, as also opined in the Sugeshan Transport case, the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482, CrPC may be invoked in exceptional circumstances if the other statutory remedies fail. In this regard, the Court emphasised on the following guidelines..– A petition can be filed before the High Court invoking Section 482 CrPC, if the SHO does not register the FIR even after 15 days of receipt of information. The High Court Registry shall not receive any petition before the expiry of these 15 days..– No petition under Section 482 shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section 154(3) CrPC..– After conducting the preliminary enquiry, the SHO’s decision to either register the complaint or close 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 CrPC as the remedy lies elsewhere..– Most of the directions issued in the Sugeshan Transport case have been upheld. This includes a direction allowing the invocation of Section 482 CrPC if the police fail to act within one week of the Magistrate’s order under Section 156 (3)..– The complainant must file an affidavit with particulars such as the date of complaint, receipt and the date of sending substance of the information to the superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC and its receipt in order to invoke Section 482, CrPC. The Registry shall not number any petition unless such an affidavit is filed..– The High Court is not automatically bound to direct the police to register the complaint in all cases even if there is a breach of the time table in Lalitha Kumari’s case. The Court will have to apply its mind before issuing appropriate directions. On this aspect, the Court noted that “Otherwise, this Court will be forced to act as a post office. After all, a judicial order requires application of mind.”.– Ordinarily, Section 156 (3) of the CrPC will have to be invoked, and not Section 482. The Court emphasised,.“Eschewing Section 156(3) CrPC 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.”.– The Court has also ordered the strict compliance with the directions issued by the Director General of Police in various circulars to enforce the Lalitha Kumari judgment..Read the Judgment: