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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...