Madras High Court
M.Balasubramanian vs The Inspector Of Police on 30 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.477 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 01.04.2025
Pronounced on : 30.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.477 of 2024
M.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mayanoor Police Station,
Karur District.
2.R.Amaravathy
3.R.Karthikeyan @ Karthikraja ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2023 on the file of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District
dated 10.03.2023 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu
For R1 : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 & R3 : No appearance
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.477 of 2024
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2023 dated 10.03.2023 on the file of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Krishnarayapuram, dismissing the
complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that the respondents 2
and 3/proposed accused are residing on the western side of the petitioner's
property, that there existed land disputes between them, that the petitioner
filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in
W.P.(MD)No.22834 of 2022 against the District Collector, Karur and the
Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk seeking direction to measure his property and
the Court has passed an order for the same on 29.09.2022, that the
Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk issued a notice at about 10.00 a.m. on
23.11.2022 informing his proposed inspection, that though he has
attempted to serve notice on the second respondent, she has refused to
receive the same and hence, the Tahsildar has posted the notice on the
outdoor of the second respondent's residence, that the property came to be
measured and thereby boundaries were identified on three sides but there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
was no boundary stone on the southern-northern boundary, that since the
Surveyor identified the southern-northern boundary, cement pole was
erected, that on 23.11.2022 at about 05.00 p.m., the respondents 2 and 3
had trespassed into the petitioner's land and removed the cement pole and
abused the petitioner in filthy language and also demolished the
compound wall and caused criminal intimidation, that though the
petitioner lodged a complaint before the Mayanoor Police, they have
neither issued any receipt nor taken any action, that the petitioner has sent
a complaint through online on 25.11.2022 to the Director General of
Police, Chennai, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy, District
Superintendent of Police, Karur, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kuzhithalai, Inspector of Police, Mayanoor and also through registered
post and that since there was no action, the petitioner was constrained to
file the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional
Magistrate Court for registration of a case and for investigation.
3. The learned Magistrate, taking the petition filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. on file in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2023, has proceeded to treat
the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate recorded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
the statement of the petitioner and also the statement of two witnesses
produced by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, upon perusing the
complaint, statement of the petitioner and other witnesses and other
materials available on record, has passed the impugned order dated
10.03.2023 by holding that the dispute is of civil in nature, dismissed the
complaint probably under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said
dismissal order, the present revision came to be filed.
4. Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S Indian Oil Corporation
vs M/S NEPC India Ltd., and Others, in Crl.A.No.834 of 2002, dated
20.07.2002, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice
of attempting to settle the civil disputes by applying pressure through
criminal prosecution and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:
“10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take
notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously
on account of a prevalent impression that civil law
remedies are time consuming and do not adequately
protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency
is seen in several family disputes also, leading to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is
also an impression that if a person could somehow be
entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood
of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes
and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of
UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed :
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is
essentially of civil nature, has been given a
cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings
are not a short cut of other remedies available in
law. Before issuing process a criminal court has
to exercise a great deal of caution. For the
accused it is a serious matter. This Court has
laid certain principles on the basis of which
High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this
Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice."
While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should
be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal
law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a
prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in
civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end
of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance
with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts,
to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of
innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section
250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or
frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the
complainant. Be that as it may.”
5. In Mitesh Kumar J Sha vs The State Of Karnataka (Crl.A.No.
1285 of 2021, dated 26.10.2021), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
reiterated that cloaking a civil dispute with a criminal nature in order to
get quicker relief is an abuse of process of law which must be discouraged.
Bearing the above legal position on mind, let us consider the case on hand.
6. As already pointed out, even in the complaint filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., the petitioner has specifically stated that there existed land
dispute between him and the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner, in his
statement, has reiterated the said version that there existed land dispute
with regard to the three feet land in between the houses of the petitioner
and the respondents 2 and 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed a writ petition in
W.P.(MD)No.22834 of 2022 seeking writ of mandamus directing the
Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk to consider the petitioner's representation and
measure the property situated in Survey No.448/9A1 and 448/9A2 at
Manjanayakkampatti Village, Kaniyalampatty Post, Kadavur Taluk, Karur
District and this Court vide order dated 29.09.2022 directed the petitioner
to produce all the relevant documents before the respondents and upon
receipt of all the relevant documents, the Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk was
directed to survey the land of the petitioner and demarcate the boundaries.
Notably, the petitioner has not impleaded the respondents 2 and 3 in the
writ petition. Moreover, there was no reference to the land dispute that
existed between the house of the petitioner as well as the respondents 2
and 3.
8. The petitioner, in the complaint as well in the statement, would
say that the Surveyor measured the property, identifying boundaries on
three sides, and despite the absence of a boundary stone on the southern-
northern boundary, a cement pole was erected in its place in the presence
of officials. However, before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner claimed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
to have erected the cement pillar some inches away from the Surveyor-
identified boundary. The learned Magistrate rightly noted the
inconsistency. Furthermore, while the petitioner and witness Kalidass
alleged that respondents 2 and 3 demolished the petitioner's compound
wall, another witness, Maruthai, claimed that the respondents damaged the
petitioner's house property, highlighting further discrepancies.
9. The learned Magistrate, considering the averments in the
complaint as well as the statement of the witnesses, has come to a decision
that the ingredients for the offences under Sections 294(b), 425, 451 and
506(2) IPC are not made out and the petitioner has not shown any prima
facie case to proceed against the respondents 2 and 3 further and
dismissed the complaint.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that since their petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses the
commission of cognizable offence, the Judicial Magistrate is duty bound
to forward the complaint to the concerned police for registering an FIR
and that he has no power or jurisdiction to dismiss the same by himself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
The above contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is
absolutely devoid of merit as the complainant does not have an
unqualified right to demand a police investigation in all circumstances and
moreover, it is not mandatory on the part of the Judicial Magistrate to refer
the complaint to the concerned police for registration of the case. It is
settled law that the Judicial Magistrate, while exercising power under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., cannot act as a post office and is duty bound to
consider the nature of the accusation or the offences alleged and to decide
about the course of action to be taken.
11. Considering the entirety of the case's facts and circumstances,
including the petitioner's affidavit and witness statements, this Court has
no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has attempted to cloak a civil
dispute in criminal garb. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that
this amounts to an abuse of court process and as such, the impugned order
dismissing the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be found
fault with. Consequently this Court concludes that the revision lacks merit
and is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
12. In the result, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed. No
costs.
30.04.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Krishnarayapuram, Karur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Mayanoor Police Station,
Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Order made in
Dated : 30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:42 am )
