S.S.Balakrishnan vs. The Superintendent Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, S.S. Balakrishnan, who runs a plastic industry named "S.R. Process," filed a criminal original petition seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case based on his complaint dated 19.02.2018. He alleged that one Vallinayagam obtained his signature under the pretext of submitting GST returns, but subsequently fabricated documents and stole machinery worth approximately Rs. 8,00,000/-. The petitioner stated that despite his complaint, no action had been taken. The Government Advocate submitted that an enquiry was conducted after receiving the complaint, and it was closed on 24.02.2018.

Held

The Court disposed of the Criminal Original Petition by recording the submission of the Government Advocate that an enquiry had been conducted and the matter was closed on 24.02.2018. The Court held that it was open to the petitioner to avail any other remedy available under the law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's allegations regarding GST returns, fabricated documents, or theft of machinery. The primary decision was to acknowledge the police's action of closing the enquiry and to leave the petitioner to pursue other legal avenues if he was dissatisfied with the closure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the registration of a case based on the petitioner's complaint, considering the police have already conducted an enquiry and closed the matter. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a case should be registered as he had lodged a complaint alleging fabrication of documents and theft of machinery, and no action had been taken by the police. He sought a direction for the registration of an FIR. Revenue/State's contention: The Government Advocate submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the police after receiving the complaint, and the same was closed on 24.02.2018. This implies that the police had investigated the complaint and decided not to register an FIR.