Dismissed

Vinay Jain v. the Inspector

Madras HC4 Jun 2015CRL OP/11196/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC to direct registration of a complaint, the court observed that allegations of criminal intimidation should be reported to the local police handling law and order rather than the respondent. The petition was closed with liberty to approach the local police if threatened.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with liberty to approach the local police if the petitioner is threatened or intimidated.

Vinay Jain Vs the Inspector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 04.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.11196 of 2015

¶6

Vinay Jain ... Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondent to register the case and investigate the same based on the petitioner's complaint dated 13.04.2014.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Satheeskumar For Respondent :Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶9

Seeking a direction to the respondent to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 13.04.2014, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶10

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

3.It is seen that the petitioner has sent a complaint dated 13.04.2014 by post to the respondent police and the same was refused to receive. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition for a direction to register the case.

¶12

4.On instructions from the respondent Police, who is present before this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that one Gopinath had launched a complaint dated 06.03.2015, which was enquired into and the same was closed on 09.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have given a complaint on 13.04.2015 for the same set of facts. This Court compared the complaints given by the

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

petitioner dated 13.04.2015 and the complaint dated 06.03.2015 given by the said Gopinath. The former is in Tamil language. The latter is in English language. Both the complaints relate to the transaction between M/s.Matrix Exports and M/s.Sakthi Shipping and Logistics. Therefore, except the difference in language, there is no material difference in facts in both the complaints. Of course, in the complaint dated 13.04.2015, the petitioner has added the allegations of criminal intimidation by the opposite party. On the allegations of criminal intimidation, a complaint should be given to the local police, who deal with law and order problems.

¶15

Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner
to approach the local police, if the petitioner is threatened or
intimidated by the opposite party.
mps
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Satheeshkumar, Advocate SR 27286
bvr(co)
prk17/6
Crl.OP.No.11196 of 2015

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

04.06.2015

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Vinay Jain v. the Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Jain v. the Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Selvaraj Vs Inspector of Police

Ranjith @ Ranjith Kumar Vs the State Rep. by

K.P.Mani Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Mani Vs R.Kanthamma

N.Pandurangan Vs State by

Sathiyaraj, 35 Years Vs the Inspector of Police