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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more