High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 06 MAD CK 0122

S. Krishnamurthy vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 30 June 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.T. Selvam, J
CASE NUMBER
Crl. O.P. No. 1834 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 348 words

C.T. Selvam, J.—Petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to register a case on the basis of his complaint dated 31.12.2013.

2.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for second respondent.

3.

On earlier occasion i.e., 04.02.2014, this Court initially has passed the following order:

By way of an interim order, this Court directs the respondent police to peruse the complaint preferred by the petitioner herein and register cases if the same informs commission of cognizable offence. In particular instances, the respondent police may resort to a petition enquiry which again shall not extend beyond a period of one week. This order is made towards effecting and ensuring compliance with the decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, . It is expected that the respondent police will follow the dictate of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment in letter and spirit and not give room for any further action at the hands of this Court. In the event of respondent police not being in receipt of complaint allegedly preferred before them by the petitioner, it would always be open for respondent police to inform such position at the next hearing date.

Post on 17.02.2014

4.

Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel for second respondent company, mentioned the matter before this Court on 26.02.2014 informing that the second respondent company and its officials would be put to great and grave prejudice if a case is registered on the complaint of the petitioner, since the petitioner was no more than a disgruntled past employee. Presently, Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel, has demonstrated that the petitioner had put in his papers under letter of his own hand dated 14.12.2013 before preference of the complaint dated 31.12.2013.

5.

Mr.P.T.Perumal, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner's resignation had been forced of him.

6.

Such is not a position informed in the petition. The first respondent police specifically is directed not to act any further on the complaint of the petitioner dated 31.12.2013. This Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed.