Skip to main content

Petitions seeking direction to register FIR pile up

Getting a first information report (FIR) registered at police stations has become something of a headache in many cases. Complainants are forced to knock the doors of the court to obtain direction to police to conduct enquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence is made out.

Though it is the duty of police to file an FIR based on a complaint raised by the petitioner, many police officers are reportedly reluctant to take the complaints forward for reasons best known to them. Affected petitioners on the condition of anonymity alleged that police officers dragged the case either to demand bribe or to keep crime rates down. As a result, many petitioners are forced to move court.

In an order dated March 26, 2015, Madurai bench of Madras high court judge C T Selvam directed Trichy city, Trichy rural and Pudukkottai police, among some other southern districts, to file FIR on the complaints filed by 35 people.

The superintendent of police, Manikandam police, Kattuputhur police and Musiri police of the district were directed to file cases on complaints from six petitioners. Trichy police commissioner was also given a direction to register cases with regard to complaint filed by one person. Regunathapuram police, Vallathirakottai police and Thirukkokarnam police of the Pudukkottai district police were also asked to register cases based on complaints from six people.

Complainants alleged police would file cases for grave offences and take action. But they would try to avoid filing cases and will attempt to bring out a compromise between the parties in complaints related to vehicle theft, marital disputes, assault, criminal intimidation in civil cases, burglary, chain snatching etc. However, not everyone can afford the fees for getting a direction from the court. Ultimately, justice is denied.

Higher police officials denied there was any hidden agenda behind the refusal to file the case. "Many civil dispute cases with false allegations of criminal offence are dragged into police station. Since no cognizable offence is made out, we don't register the case. On receiving the court direction, we file an FIR and then investigate into the matter," Trichy superintendant of police S Rajeswari told TOI.

But plenty of petitions seeking court direction to file FIR have accumulated at the Madurai bench of Madras high court and not all of them are related to civil disputes.

City commissioner of police (CoP) Sanjay Mathur said he had always instructed his officers to file a case if a cognizable offence was found. "I have given stern instructions to police stations to file an FIR if the cognizable offence was made out because we are here to help the genuine people," he said.

TOI's enquiry revealed that there had been several instances where the complainants were forced to bribe the investigation officer to file an FIR. Unwilling to give the bribe, some moved the court.

"More people are being driven to file petition in the high court seeking direction to have a case registered. The respective heads of police should ensure that the FIR should be filed so that the people will be prevented from running from pillar to post. If further investigation confirms there was no commission of crime, they can close the case citing mistake of facts," said secretary of consumer protection council of Tamil Nadu, Trichy S Pushpavanam.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/trichy/Petitions-seeking-direction-to-register-FIR-pile-up/articleshow/47126379.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even