D. Prasanna vs State and Another

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The petition 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 in-laws 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.

The Court heard the submissions made by the respondent and also the counter party Sujatha, who was permitted to intervene in this matter.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in as much as the complaint which reflects commission of cognisable 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 u/s 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

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 u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, it is submitted that, this Court has no power :to give any direction to the Police

u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If at all any direction is required, that should flow from the writ jurisdiction and not from the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court.

The Court heard the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent.

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 cognisable offence.

While striking the difference between the revisional jurisdiction u/s 397(2) and inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the Honourable Supreme

Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others, , has held (para 6):

It is well settled that the inherent powers u/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, it has to be exercised sparingly. If these

considerations are kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between Sections 482 and 397 (2) of the present code.

In a case where the High Court entertained an application to stay the operation of the judgment of the trial Court, invoking the provision u/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 Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, has observed as follows:

In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have entertained a petition u/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.

A single Judge of this Court (A. K. Rajan, J. as he then was) in K.R. Ramkumar Vs. State, 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 to register and investigate a case.

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 Ors. 2005 (3) LW 87 has held that when there are three clear alternative remedies available, one u/s 154(3),

another u/s 156(3) and yet another Section 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.

In a case where the Station House Officer turned the deaf ear to the complaint which reflects commission of cognisable 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 Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Others, 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 u/s 154 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, if the complaint prima facie

discloses commission of cognisable offence.

Section 154(1) mandates the Station House Officer to register a case, if the information found in the complaint reflects the commission of a

cognisable offence. The complaint given by the petitioner clearly discloses the commission of a cognisable of-fence. When the complaint is not

registered even where there is allegation of the commission of a cognisable offence, directing the party to go through the long, lengthy and winding

procedure in search of justice is totally unjustifiable.

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 cognisable 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 without 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 cognisable offence. The Superintendent of Police or the Judicial Magistrate concerned has to look into

whether there is any reflection of commission of cognisable offence in the complaint. The same job can be neatly executed by this Court, invoking

provision u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

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 cognisable offence.

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 to invoke u/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.

In this 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 Ramesh Kumari Vs. State

(N.C.T. of Delhi) and Others, .

The learned Judge of this Court (A.K. Rajan, J. as he then was), in Lourdumary Vs. State and Others, 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 Article 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.

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 Article 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.

Section 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 Article 226 of the Indian Constitution confers enormous power on the High Court to issue writs

within its territorial jurisdiction to any person or authority. Therefore, as far as the directions issued to secure the ends of justice within the ambit of

Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have co-ordinate 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.

Therefore, rejecting the plea of the learned Counsel for the intervener/counter party and the respondent police that this Court cannot entertain a

petition u/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.