Dismissed

M.Chandrasekar Reddy v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC8 Jun 2015CRL OP/9206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought direction to register a partnership dispute complaint. The Court held that the dispute is of a civil nature involving partners and closed the petition, allowing remedies under law. No direction was given to register the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. No direction was given to register the complaint.

M.Chandrasekar Reddy Vs the Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.9206 of 2015

¶6

M.Chandrasekar Reddy .. Petitioner Vs

¶7

The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Poonamallee Police Station, Poonamallee, Chennai .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 24.02.2015.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr D.Shanmugam For Respondents :Mr.C.Emalias,

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Seeking a direction to the second respondent police to register to register the petitioner's complaint dated 24.02.2015., the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶15

On a reading of the complaint, it appears that this petitioner and counter petitioner had entered into a partnership for running a company in the name of M/s.Axon Technologies during the month of December 2012 and it is alleged by the complainant that the counter petitioner has slowly and steadily usurped the company and he is attempting to deny the petitioner the fruits of the partnership.

¶16

In this regard, the petitioner lodged the present complaint before the second respondent police and during the course of enquiry, it came to light that earlier this petitioner has lodged a similar complaint before the Central Crime Branch and the same appears to have been closed. Since the matter is essentially a dispute between the petitioner and partners, the second respondent police has closed the complaint.

¶17

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

¶18

Under such circumstances, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law.

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶20

srn/ds

¶21

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶22

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Poonamallee Police Station,
Poonamallee, Chennai
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.D.Shanmugam, Advocate SR 27332
vd(co)
prk19/6
Crl.OP No.9206 of 2015

¶23

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

M.Chandrasekar Reddy v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Chandrasekar Reddy v. the Commissioner of Police

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

Dhanalakshmi Vs

R.Subramani Vs the Inspector of Police

M.H.Shahul Hameed Vs the State Rep. by

K.M.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Jainla Vs State Rep. by

Pon Murugesan Vs the State Rep. by Its