Madras High Court
Nereus Marine Pvt. Ltd vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 November, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.30410 of 2025
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30410 of 2025
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30410 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2025
CO RAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.30410 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.20810 of 2025
Nereus Marine Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Capt Durgesh Prathap Singh,
No.B401, The Great Eastern Summit,
Plot No.66, Sector 15,
CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai – 400 614. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Inspector of Police,
K-9, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station,
Chennai – 600 011.
2.Nireekshan Engineering Service Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep by K.P.Vijayakumar
No.259/125, 3rd Floor,
Linghi Chetty Street,
Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. … Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
praying to call for the records pertaining to the entire records relating to the
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30410 of 2025
impugned police summons dated 29.10.2025 issued by the 1st respondent
under Sections 179 and 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
2023, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.P.Maurya
For Respondent-1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
ORDER
The petitioner received summons dated 29.10.2025 for his appearance
before the first respondent on 03.11.2025. Challenging the same, the
petitioner filed this petition for the reason that in the summons reference has
been made to Sections 179 and 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS).
2.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that without registering
a case, commencement of investigation invoking Sections 179 and 94 of
BNSS is not proper. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
rendered by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.26299 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025 and the
judgment rendered by the Madurai Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)
Nos.9478 of 2025, etc. batch. dated 05.11.2025.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Submitted that as per
Section 173(3) of BNSS, the police on receipt of information relating to the
commission of any cognizable offence which is made punishable for three
years or more but less than seven years, the officer incharge of the police
station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the
offence proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry. In this case from the
documents submitted by the petitioner it is confirmed that petitioner had
taken service of the de-facto complainant and agreed to pay USD 6500.00 for
cleaning of the hull and barge. He further submitted that though in the
complaint the second respondent mentioned as USD 7500.00, the invoice
produced by the petitioner confirms that it is for USD 6500.00. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
petitioner’s contention that invoice raised in UAE and the respondent police
has got no jurisdiction cannot be countenanced, since the complaint narrates
how the petitioner cheated the second respondent. The petitioner had sent a
payment advice to the second respondent/de-facto complainant for USD
3,750.00. It is a part amount and later though swift message has been sent, it
is not followed with any payment and the cleaning of hull completed. Under
the false promise cheating has been committed. The respondent police would
conduct proper investigation, if required register an F.I.R. thereafter proceed
against the petitioner invoking Section 173(3) of BNSS.
4.On the submission of the petitioner and also both the respondents and
on perusal of the materials, it is seen that there was transactions between the
petitioner and the second respondent. Whether the payments made and
cheating was at the inception or not, it is for the respondent police to decide
and take appropriate decision and whether to invoke Sections 173(3) or 179
of BNSS, it is for the respondent to decide.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
5.With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition is
disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
21-11-2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
K-9, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station,
Chennai – 600 011.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
and
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:25:49 pm )
