Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1024 (MAD)

D. Prasanna v. State

2006-04-10

M.JEYAPAUL

body2006
Judgment : 1. Thepetition is filed seeking direction to the respondent to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 23-2-2006. The complaint inter alia reads that on 22-2-2006, one Sujatha rang up to the residence of the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, threatened her to settle the amount which was allegedly borrowed by her. It has been further contended in the complaint that the said Sujatha sent SMS to the friends of the petitioner using unparliamentary words. On 23-2-2006, the said Sujatha came along with three henchmen to the residence of the petitioner, shouted and threatened that she would defame the petitioner and would not permit her to live peacefully. There was further threat that the said Sujatha would attack the children, family members, parents and inlaws of the petitioner. The said Sujatha shouted at the petitioner using all unparliamentary words and heaped abuse on her. The grievance of the petitioner is that the life of the petitioner and her family members is in danger. 2. The Court heard the submissions made by the respondent and also the counter party Sujatha, who was permitted to intervene in this matter. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in as much as the complaint which reflects commission of cognizable offence addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, South, Chennai 600 017, with a copy endorsed to the Commissioner of Police was not registered, a direction may be issued to the respondent Police to perform their duty as contemplated under S.154 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the counter party would submit that when there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, she cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction under S.482 of Cr.P.C. Further, it is submitted that, this Court has no power to give any direction to the Police under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It at all any direction is required, that should flow from the writ jurisdiction and not from the inherent jurisdiction of this Court 5. The Court heard the submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. 6. The sum and substance of the complaint would disclose that there is sufficient allegation to the effect that there had been threat from the counter party. Abusive language also has been allegedly used by the counter party. The Court heard the submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. 6. The sum and substance of the complaint would disclose that there is sufficient allegation to the effect that there had been threat from the counter party. Abusive language also has been allegedly used by the counter party. So there is sufficient allegation found in the complaint that there was commission of cognizable offence. 7. While striking the difference between the revisional jurisdiction under S.397(2) and inherent jurisdiction under S.482 of Cr.P.C, the Honourable Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohagi (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 67 : 1983 Crl.LJ 159), has held (para 6): "It is well settled that the inherent powers under S.482 of the present code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further the power being an extraordinary one, is has to be exercised sparingly. If these considerations are kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between S.482 and 397(2) of the present code." 8. In a case where the High Court entertained an application to stay the operation of the judgment of the trial Court, invoking the provision under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, based on the allegation made by the accused touching the conduct of the trial Judge, the Honourable Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2554 : 1999 Cri LJ 3964) has observed as follows: "In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have entertained a petition under S.482 of the Code and stonewalled the very efficacious alternative remedy of appeal as provided in the Code. Merely because the accused made certain allegations against the trial Judge the substantive law cannot be by passed. Moreover, it is well neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provisions of the Code." 9. A single Judge of this Court (A. K. Rajan, J., as he then as) in K. R. Ramkumar v. State rep. Moreover, it is well neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provisions of the Code." 9. A single Judge of this Court (A. K. Rajan, J., as he then as) in K. R. Ramkumar v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam West Police Station, Kumbakonam ( 2004 (2) CTC 42 ) has held that, when there is alternative remedy provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the aggrieved party cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, seeking direction to the Police register and investigate a case. 10. The Bench of our High Court in Venu Srinivasan v. Krishnamachari, Secy. Divya Desa Parambariya Paadhukaappy Peravai, 214, East Uthara Street, Srirangam, Trichy 6 and 9 others ( 2005 (3) LW 87 ) has held that when there are three clear alternative remedies available, one under S.154(3), another under S.156(3) and yet another, S.200, Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant cannot knock at the doors of the High Court, invoking the writ jurisdiction seeking direction to the Police to register a case. 11. In a case where the Station House Officer turned the deaf ear to the complaint which reflects commission of cognizable offence and the Police Commissioner who was also brought to the notice of such a complaint exhibited indifference, the Honourable Supreme Court in a recent case reported in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), (2006 (1) CTC 666 : 2006 Cri LJ 1622) has categorically held rejecting the plea of the counter party that there was an alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, that irrespective of the genuineness or otherwise of the information found in the complaint, the case has got to be registered by the Station House Officer under S.154 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, if the complaint prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence. 12. S.154(1) mandates the Station House Officer to register a case, if the information found in the complaint reflects the commission of a cognizable offence. The complaint given by the petitioner clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. 12. S.154(1) mandates the Station House Officer to register a case, if the information found in the complaint reflects the commission of a cognizable offence. The complaint given by the petitioner clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. When the complaint; is nor registered even where there is allegation of the commission of a cognizable offence, directing the party to go through the long, lengthy and winding procedure in search of justice is totally unjustifiable. 13. The rich people has the capacity and wherewithal to see that the complaint lodged by them is registered in the quickest possible time. As they have a battalion of service personnel under them, they can easily employ them to approach the various authorities as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure to see that the complaint which reflects commission of a cognizable offence is registered. Even if a day is wasted for a rich man, it is not going to strike his stomach. But labourers and persons who are the daily bread winners will find it difficult to take a winding course to plead before various authorities to take their complaint on file. Such persons cannot waste even a single day. They will have to go without food, if they are otherwise engaged with out doing their daily dose of work. It will really be an injustice to ask such people, who do not have any wherewithal to approach each and every authority, as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek justice, more especially when the complaint reflects commission of a cognizable offence. The Superintendent of Police or the Judicial Magistrate concerned has to look into whether there is any reflection of commission of cognizable offence in the complaint. The same job can be neatly executed by this Court, invoking provision under S.482 of Cr.P.C. 14. The Honourable Supreme Court in the latest case referred to above has asserted that the availability of alternative remedy cannot be a ground to refuse reconsideration of a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence. 15. The same job can be neatly executed by this Court, invoking provision under S.482 of Cr.P.C. 14. The Honourable Supreme Court in the latest case referred to above has asserted that the availability of alternative remedy cannot be a ground to refuse reconsideration of a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence. 15. Though the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court in the judgment referred to earlier have held that the availability of alternative remedy is a bar too invoke under S.482 of Cr.P.C, the aforesaid latest verdict of the Supreme Court of India has laid down the law that the Court cannot refuse to give a direction on the ground that there was alternative remedy available to the complainant. 16. Inthis case it is found that the Commissioner of Police was also put on notice of the complaint by endorsing a copy to him. Therefore, the counter party cannot take a valid plea that in case the Station House Officer refuses to register a case, the complainant should have approached the Commissioner of Police to register a case. Further, the earlier view that the availability of alternative remedy will keep the party at bay from the inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been completely diluted in the latest decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (2006 (1) CTC 666 : 2006 Cri LJ 1622). 17. The learned Judge of this Court (A. K. Rajan J. as he then was), in Lourdumary. v. State rep. by The Inspector General of Police, Chennai ( 2004 (3) CTC 700 ) has held: "Inherent powers cannot be invoked to give a direction to the Police to register and investigate a case. Where the Police are found to be not performing their duty in honest and objective manner, the aggrieved party can very well approach the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution". Where the Court finds that the weapon in the inherent domain of this Court will have to be effectively used in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court has to necessarily use the weapon without any compunction. 18. The observation of the Honourable Mr. Where the Court finds that the weapon in the inherent domain of this Court will have to be effectively used in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court has to necessarily use the weapon without any compunction. 18. The observation of the Honourable Mr. Justice A. K. Rajan (as he then was) in the above judgment that the aggrieved party can very well approach the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is obiter dictum in as much as the said issue was not raised and no discussion also was undertaken with regard thereto in that case. 19. S.482 of Cr.P.C. confers inherent jurisdiction to the High Court to secure ends of justice within the sweep and ambit of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Indian Constitution confers enormous power on the High Court to issue writs within its territorial jurisdiction to any person or authority. Therefor, as far as the directions issued to secure the ends of justice within the ambit of Code of Criminal Procedure, Art.226 of the Constitution of India and S.482 of Cr.P.C. have coordinate jurisdiction in as much as writs or directions to secure the ends of justice can also be issued under the writ jurisdiction as well as under inherent jurisdiction. 20. Therefore, rejecting the plea of the learned counsel for the intervener / counter party and the respondent police that this Court cannot entertain a petition under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, when alternative remedy is available and that writ jurisdiction alone will have to be invoked to redress the grievance, if any of the complainant. The respondent police is directed to register the complaint dated 23-2-2006 given by the petitioner forthwith. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Petition Allowed.