Disposed

M.Arunkumar, v. Assistant Commissioner of

Madras HC9 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/1877/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking direction to register an F.I.R. regarding an alleged theft and financial dispute. The court disposed of the petition, noting the enquiry had already been closed by police deeming it civil, stating the remedy was open.

What did the court decide?

The court disposed of the petition, stating it is open to the petitioner to avail another remedy under law as the offence was closed by police.

M.Arunkumar, Vs Assistant Commissioner of — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1877 of 2018

M.Arunkumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent Police to register F.I.R. based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 19.07.2017.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Sundaralingam For Respondent : Mr.Prabhu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Petition has been filed by the petitioner, to direct the respondent to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 19.07.2017.

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and one, Harivasakan are partners and they have been running a Jewelry shop in the name of J.K. Jewellers. He further submitted that the father of the said Harivasakan, namely., Jayaraman, has compelled the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and the petitioner has also paid the said amount in the month of October, 2016, and subsequently, the said Jayaraman has threatened the petitioner to pay further sum of Rs.10 lakhs and for that the petitioner refused. Hence, the said Jeyaraman has locked the doors of the said shop and thereafter, a mediation was going on and during the said process, the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Harivasakan and his father Jeayraman had broken the door of the jewelry shop on 06.07.2017, and stolen 30 kilos of silver and also

¶16

¶17

documents. He further submitted that with regard to the said occurrence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the respondent on 19.07.2017, but, so far no action has been taken.

¶18

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has submitted

¶19

that after receipt of the said complaint, enquiry has been conducted and the same has been closed as dispute is civil in nature.

¶20

4.Recording the aforesaid submissions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. It is open to the petitioner to avail another remedy, which is available under law.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CSI)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order,

¶27

Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai.

¶28

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

¶29

+One cc to M/s.Sundaralingam, Advocate, SR.No.47895

¶30

¶31

RL/4C/2P/SV/MMS/SAR4/6/3/2018

¶32

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

¶33

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1877 of 2018

¶34

¶35

09.02.2018

¶36

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

M.Arunkumar, v. Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Arunkumar, v. Assistant Commissioner of

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

M.Leelavathi Vs Superindent of Police

Gopal Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Muniyasamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Jinna Mohammed Vs the Inspector of Police

Semraj, Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Rajeshwari, Vs the Superintendent of Police