The Court made the following order :-

2. The petitioner has filed this petition on 25.08.2021. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one Sureshkumar has lodged a complaint as against this petitioner that when he was standing in front of the Sub-Registrar Office, the petitioner criminally intimidated him and also abused with filthy language.

3. He further submits that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are residing in the same village. The defacto complainant is claiming right 2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021 over the property of the petitioner, as if he had contributed to purchase the property. However, the defacto complainant in order to extract money from the petitioner, had chosen to lodge a false complaint as if he was threatened by the petitioner. After receiving the complaint, the respondent police had insisted the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defacto complainant or otherwise threatened to put him behind the bars.

4. He further submits that the respondent police persistently called the petitioner for enquiry and finally on 19.08.2021 sent summons under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. In fact, on 08.08.2021 the petitioner had appeared before the respondent police and given sufficient explanation that no such occurrence had happened as per the complaint of the defacto complainant. He further submits that the respondent police are conducting “Kangaroo Court” in the police Station and the petitioner is taking steps to file appropriate petition before this Court. Further, there are CCTV cameras installed in the Registar's 3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021 Office and if any such occurrence had happened as alleged by the defacto complainant, definitely the same would have been recorded in the CCTV camera. Further, the petitioner has not even visited the place at the time of alleged occurrence.

5. This Court, by order dated 02.09.2021 directed the respondent police to conduct an enquiry and to register a case, if any cognizable offence was made out as against the petitioner, or to close the petition enquiry within a period of two weeks and to file a report before this Court on 16.09.2021 (today).

6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the respondent police have not filed any report, instead, they have taken a stand that the petitioner has not co-operated for the enquiry.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the decision reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, [Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh], has discussed in detail 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021 as to the manner in which cases have to be registered and issued series of directions to be followed by the investigating officer on receipt of a complaint. For better understanding, the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his 5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021 duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

120.7. While ensuring and protecting the 6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021 rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions and pursuant to the orders of this Court in Crl.OP. (MD)Nos.6493 of 2018 & 17119 of 2017, dated 19.07.2018, the Director General of Police has issued a Circular in Rc.No.226313/Crime.4(3)/2013, dated 26.07.2018, issuing certain directions / instructions, which reads as follows:

But, in certain cases, they can proceed with the investigation even without registering the complaint. In order to avoid any abuse of power, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted the police to conduct preliminary enquiry in respect of certain cases alone, as stated supra. But it does not mean that the police can proceed with the enquiry for months 12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021 together as petition enquiry. An ultimatum has been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the preliminary enquiry should be completed in a time bound manner, not exceeding 15 days and in case of time extension, by adducing adequate reasons in the general diary, the time can be extended, that too for a maximum of six weeks. The circular issued by the Director General of Police also sails with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in fact, in the Circular, the Director General of Police has also made it clear that the Monitoring Committee has to review the cases as to whether the directions issued in Lalitha Kumari's case has been scrupulously followed or not and based on its report, the Unit Officers have to take appropriate action against the erring officials.

10. Despite the availability of the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Circular issued by the Director General of Police, it appears that in this case, a petition enquiry is kept pending for nearly 2 months and the respondent has conducted a Kangaroo Court.

13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021

11.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the respondent police and the decision in Lalitha Kumari's case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

12.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned and on further conditions that:

(B P J) 16.09.2021 AM/csm 15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021 Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

1. The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.

Cr.No.Not known of 2021..

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Copy To The Superintendent of Police, Karur District.

16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRL OP(MD). No.12454 of 2021 B.PUGALENDHI,J AM/csm ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12454 of 2021 Date : 16/09/2021 17/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/