Madras High Court
B.Arunkumar vs T.Mohan Doss on 4 June, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 07.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1 of 2024
B.Arunkumar ... Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
T.Mohan Doss : Respondent/Accused
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C., to call for the records in the judgment passed by the learned Additional
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District in
Crl.M.P.No.6473 of 2022, dated 24.02.2023 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.
6473 of 2022, dated 24.02.2023, on the file of the Additional District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, dismissing the complaint filed under
Section 200 Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that he was working as
Additional Assistant elementary Educational Officer at Guzilamparai, that the
respondent was working as a Headmaster in Panchayat Union Middle School,
R.Kombai, that the petitioner went to inspect the above school on 12.09.2017
and at that time, though the respondent had affixed his signature in the
attendance register, he was not on duty, that the petitioner had warned the
respondent, that the respondent, having developed grudge over the same, has
morphed the photo of the petitioner along with a photo of women colleague and
circulated the same with an intention to defame the petitioner and bring down his
reputation, that the respondent has also sent the morphed photos to the Director
of School Education and as a result, the petitioner was enquired, that when the
respondent came to the office of the petitioner on 26.04.2018, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
questioned the respondent and at that time, the respondent abused the petitioner
in filthy language and caused criminal intimidation.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he lodged a complaint before
the District Superintendent of Police, Dindigul on 04.05.2018 who in turn
forwarded the same to the Guzilamparai police station and on that basis, F.I.R.,
came to be registered in Cr.No.178 of 2018 on 17.07.2018, that the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Guzilamparai police has filed a negative final report as
mistake of fact, that the jurisdictional Court, taking the said negative charge
sheet in Crl.M.P.No.6709 of 2018 called for objections from the petitioner, that
the petitioner has entered into appearance through his Counsel on 09.02.2019
and got time for filing objections, that since the petitioner due to the mental
agony caused by the respondent, was not in a position to decide anything and
since he absented himself before the concerned Court, the final report was
accepted, that when the petitioner met the respondent accidentally on 08.07.2022
at Dindigul, the respondent informed him that the petitioner's complaint came to
be dismissed and insulted him, that Guzilamparai police without conducting
proper enquiry and without cosidering the evidence given by the complainant's
side, has filed the final report in support of the respondent, that the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
has committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 469 and 506(ii)
I.P.C., and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the above private
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the private complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.c., has proceeded with the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
The learned Magistrate has recorded statements of the petitioner as well as one
Nirmala Devi produced by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, upon
considering the complaint, statement of witnesses and other materials, passed the
impugned order dated 24.02.2023, by holding that the petitioner has failed to
show any prima facie case to proceed against the respondent, dismissed the
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Challenging the dismissal, the present
revision came to be filed.
5. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint given by the
petitioner, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.178 of 2018 against the
respondent for the alleged offences 294(b), 469 and 506(ii) I.P.C., and after
completing the investigation, Guzilamparai Police has filed the final report dated
27.10.2018 referring the complaint as mistake of fact. As rightly contended by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
the learned Counsel for the respondent, in the final report, Guzilamparai police
has specifically observed that the petitioner has lodged a false complaint against
the respondent. It is pertinent to note that though the petitioner in his complaint
has alleged that when he inspected the School of the respondent, he found that
the respondent was not on duty, but he had subscribed the signature in the
attendance register.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the
jurisdictional police's investigation has specifically confirmed that the
respondent was on casual leave on the inspection day, rendering the petitioner's
claims about the respondent's signature and alleged warning patently false.
7. It is not in dispute that the learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the
negative report, has sent a notice to the petitioner calling for his objections and
that though the petitioner has entered into appearance through his Counsel and
despite taking time, has not chosen to file any objections nor any protest petition
and that therefore, the learned Magistrate, taking note of the non-filing of
objections and the absence of the petitioner for subsequent hearings, has passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
an order accepting the final report and thereby closing the F.I.R., as mistake of
fact. Though the F.I.R., was closed as mistake of fact in the year 2019 itself, the
petitoner has filed the present private complaint in September 2022 after the
lapse of more than three years, but raising the very same allegatins against the
respondent. Although the petitioner and his witness, Nirmala Devi, alleged that
the respondent morphed and circulated their photos, the learned Magistrate
rightly observed that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to substantiate
this claim. Furthermore, the petitioner's allegation that the respondent threatened
him with dire consequences on 26.04.2018 does not indicate a continuous threat
to his life or an apprehension of ongoing danger.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that several
women teachers as well as the Headmistress have made complaints against the
petitioner for causing sexual harassment to them, that though the Gender
Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the
provisions of the Gender Sensitization Act has given a report that the charges are
not proved, the said report came to be set aside by this Court and remitted the
matter back to the Committee, that the petitioner has filed several cases before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
this Court as well as other Courts against his own Education Department and the
Government authorities and against the teachers and staffs working in the
Government Schools and that the present complaint came to be lodged only to
take revenge against the respondent, who had also lodged a complaint against the
petitioner and that the above action of the petitioner would only amount to abuse
of process of law.
9. In another revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.617 of 2023, this Court has held
that the petitioner is guilty of abusing the process of Court and law.
10. Considering the complaint, the statement of witnesses and other
materials, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner without any iota
of basis, has filed the above private complaint and that the finding of the learned
Magistrate that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and as
such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, is perfectly in order and the same
cannot be found fault with. Consequently, this Court concludes that the revision
is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
04.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
SSL
To
The Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Court, Vedasandur, Dindigul District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
SSL
Pre-Delivery order made in
04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 07:00:10 pm )
