Dismissed

K.Sekar v. State Rep. by

Madras HC22 Nov 2024CRL RC/1786/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 156(3) CPC to register a complaint. The facts involved alleged damage to a fishing net by a sailor. The Court held that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence and the petitioner could only claim damages.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach appropriate forum for damages.

K.Sekar Vs State Rep. by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2024

¶7

K.Sekar . .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Seashore Police Station, Nagapattinam. (Cr.No. of 2024). . .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS Act, 2023 to set aside the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Nagapattinam and allow the revision.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana Govt.Advocate (crl.side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application

¶15

filed under Section 156 (3) to register the complaint.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/4

¶18

Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2024

¶19

2. The sum and substance of the petitioner's complaint is that the

¶20

sailor of a ship owned by P.P.N Power Plant had damaged his fishing net in the sea; that the damages caused to the fishing net of the petitioner is worth about Rs.1,00,000/- .

¶21

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, found that no cognizable

¶22

offence has been made out and therefore dismissed the above said petition.

¶23

3. On perusal of the impugned order and the complaint, this Court finds that the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence and that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, the petitioner would be entitled to only claim damages for the loss incurred by him. In such circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶24

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶25

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum seeking damages.

22.11.2024

rgr

2/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2024

¶31

¶32

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam.

¶33

2.The Inspector of Police, Seashore Police Station, Nagapattinam.

¶34

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/4

¶37

Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2024

¶38

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶39

rgr

¶40

Crl.R.C.No.1786 of 2024

¶41

22.11.2024

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

K.Sekar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sekar v. State Rep. by

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

Raja Vs the State Rep by Its

Vellachi v Arunachalam Vs Mr. Johny Chellappa

A.Aadhil Mon Vs State by

Santhosh Kumar Vs the State Rep by

Ranganathan Vs State Rep. by

Syed Noor Basha Vs the State Rep. by