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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...