Madras High Court
State Bank Of India vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 March, 2022
Crl.OP.No.4959 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.4959 of 2022
State Bank of India,
Retail Assets Central Processing Centre
(RACPC) 4/952 & 4, 952-A,
Old Mahabalipuram Road,
Nehru Nagar, Perungudi,
Chennai 600 096,
represented by its Assistant General Manager,
Mr.Guru Swamy V Male/Aged-51 years. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
No.132, EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. The State rep. By,
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
EDF-II, Team-IV,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the closure report dated
08.05.2021 and direct the respondents police to register the petitioner's
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.4959 of 2022
complaint dated 03.02.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parmasivam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the
closure report dated 08.05.2021 and direct the respondents police to
register the petitioner's complaint dated 03.02.2021.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that based on the
complaint dated 03.02.2021 given by the petitioner to the first
respondent, enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and in that
enquiry, it was found that the loan has been sanctioned without following
the rules of Bank and the complaint has been closed. He would further
submit that in the event of petitioner being aggrieved by such closure
report, the petitioner shall approach the concerned Jurisdictional Court.
3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.4959 of 2022
materials available on record.
4. It is seen that the petitioner had given a complaint to the
Commissioner of Police and it has been forwarded to the second
respondent. The second respondent had conducted the preliminary
enquiry, finding that the rules of the Bank has not been followed by the
officials and thereby the complaint has been closed.
5. This petition is not maintainable, in view of the Order passed by
a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in G.Prabhakaran v. The
Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 489.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment rendered by a three
Judge Bench in M.Subramaniam v. S.Janaki, reported in (2020) 5 CTC
464, after relying upon Sakiri Vasu's Case, has categorically held that
the High Court cannot issue any direction for registration of FIR in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the informant has to necessarily avail the
alternative remedy provided under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C., and
Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Liberty is given to the petitioner to workout
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.4959 of 2022
his remedy as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in
the order referred supra.
6. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
03.03.2022
shk/sai
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
No.132, EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. The State rep. By,
The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
EDF-II, Team-IV,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.4959 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J,.
shk
Crl.O.P.No.4959 of 2022
03.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
