Dismissed

S.Premavathy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Aug 2016CRL OP/17840/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to register an FIR. The court held that the facts indicated a civil monetary dispute involving notices and threats, not a positive nexus of a cognizable offence, thus refusal to register the FIR was upheld with liberty to work out remedies.

What did the court decide?

The petition for direction to register an FIR was declined; liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue civil remedies.

S.Premavathy Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP No.17840 of 2016

¶6

S.Premavathy ..Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Inspector of Police Guduvancheri Police Station Chengalpet Taluk Kancheepuram District. .. Respondent

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 22.07.2016 lodged by the petitioner in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2013(4) Crimes 243 (SC)] and to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Guruprasadh

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl.Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶12

This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 22.07.2016 lodged by the petitioner in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)] and to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶13

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

¶14

On a reading of the complaint dated 22.07.2016, it is seen that this petitioner had borrowed money from the opposite party and it is alleged by the petitioner that she has paid substantial amount to the opposite party, but in spite of it, the opposite party is demanding the entire amount and threatening the petitioner. It is also seen that the opposite party has sent an Advocate notice to the petitioner and this petitioner has also issued a reply notice. Under such

¶15

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

¶16

circumstances, no positive direction can be issued to register an FIR on the complaint dated 22.07.2016.

¶17

Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(J)

¶19

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Guduvancheri Police Station
Chengalpet Taluk
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakantan, Advocate Sr.46600
Crl.OP No.17840 of 2016
ev[co]
srg 08/09/2016

¶20

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

S.Premavathy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Premavathy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.a.C.Muthiah, Vs the Reserve Bank of India

P.Aitha Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Indus Towers Limited Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.K. Murugesan, Age 76 Years, Vs State by the Inspector of

K. Saravanan, Vs the State Rep. by the

Indira Vs the Superintendent of Police