Madras High Court
Gtl Infrastructure Limited vs Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 14.02.2025
Pronounced on : 11.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193,
1229, 1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
GTL Infrastructure Limited,
rep by its Authorised Signatory
Jeyakumar ... Petitioner in
Crl.RC(MD)No.
1190 of 2023
GTL Infrastructure Limited,
rep by its Authorised Signatory
R.Sathishkumar ... Petitioner in
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.
1191 and 1192 of
2023
GTL Infrastructure Limited,
rep by its Authorised Signatory
Thajmal Khan ... Petitioner in
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.
1193 and 1234 of
2023
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
GTL Infrastructure Limited,
rep by its Authorised Signatory
Ramesh Kannan ... Petitioner in
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.
1229 and 1290 of
2023
GTL Infrastructure Limited,
rep by its Authorised Signatory
Muthuvenkatakrishnan ... Petitioner in
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.
1287, 1288 and
1289 of 2023
Vs.
Inspector of Police,
Eriyodu Police Station,
Eriyodu,Dindigul. ... Respondent in
Crl.RC(MD)No.
1190 of 2023
Inspector of Police,
Ammayanaickanur Police Station,
Gullalagundu, Ammayanaickanur,
Dindigul-624201. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1191
of 2023
Inspector of Police,
Pattiveeranpatti Police Station,
Pattiveeranpatti,
Dindigul-624211. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1192
of 2023
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
Inspector of Police,
Emaneshwaram Police Station,
Nainar Kovil Road, Jeeva Nagar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram-623707. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1193
of 2023
The Inspector of Police,
Chokkampatti Police Station,
Madurai-Kollam Main Road,
Chokkampatti,
Tenkasi-627751. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1229
of 2023
Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Bose Nagar,
Pudukottai-622001. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1234
of 2023
Inspector of Police,
Sattur Town Police Station,
Sattur Sub Division,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1287
of 2023
Inspector of Police,
Sattur Taluk Police Station,
Sattur Sub Division,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1288
of 2023
3/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
Sattur Sub Division,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1289
of 2023
The Inspector of Police,
Tenkasi Police Station,
Tenkasi-627811. ... Respondent in Crl.
RC(MD)No.1290
of 2023
Common Prayer : These Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Sections
397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the orders dated
16.02.2023, 08.03.2023, 30.01.2023, 19.05.2023, 28.04.2023, 21.07.2023
and 19.05.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.879 of 2023, 1847 of 2023, 1848 of
2023, 361 of 2023, 2986 of 2023, 6015 of 2022, 228 of 2022, 229 of 2022,
310 of 2022 and 2984 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,
Vedasandhur, Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Judicial Magistrate,
Paramakudi, Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Pudukkottai, Judicial Magistrate II, Sattur and Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi
and pass a direction to register FIRs and grant such other further relieves
as this Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of
the cases.
(in all the petitions)
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
4/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
The Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023 are directed against the orders
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrates, in dismissing the petitions filed
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1191 and 1192 of
2023 are directed against the orders dated 08.03.2023 on the file of the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, in dismissing the petitions to
condone the delay in re-presenting the petitions filed under Section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Company
incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, registered
with the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, as an
Infrastructure Provider Category-1 (IP-1) and is engaged with business of
installation and maintenance of passive infrastructures / Telecom towers
for the licensed Telecom Operators across India including Chennai Circle,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
that the assets and liabilities of Aircel Private Limited were transferred to
Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., vide orders of the High Court in
C.P.Nos.103 and 110 to 112 of 2010 dated 16.06.2010 and are now vested
with the petitioner's Company, that the petitioner or the petitioner's
predecessors have entered into lease or license agreement with the owners
of the various sites and thereafter had erected mobile towers and that the
sites, which were taken on lease/license, are in possession of the petitioner
and the towers erected thereupon are also owned and possessed by the
petitioner's Company.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that its representative visited
the sites, in which, towers were erected and during inspection, they have
found that mobile towers / equipment have been dismantled / stolen from
the said sites, that upon enquiry, they came to understand that the said act
of the dismantling the assets and / or theft of assets at their sites are caused
by some miscreants / unknown persons / landlords, that the said towers
and other ancillary equipment, i.e., entire tower, shelter, diesel generator,
battery bank, etc., lying at the said sites were the legitimate assets
belonging to the petitioner's Company and that due to the said intended/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
unintended, unlawful theft and / or dismantling of the said assets, the
petitioner's Company has been facing huge financial loss.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that they have sent postal
complaints to the concerned police stations and despite receiving the
same, no action was initiated, that thereafter, they have sent postal
complaints to the concerned District Superintendent of Police, but no
action has been taken and that therefore, the petitioner is constrained to
file the above petitions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking directions to
the respondent police to register the F.I.R. for the offences under Sections
378, 405, 441, 424 and 425 IPC r/w Section 25 of Indian Telegraph Act
and to proceed with the investigation.
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1191 and 1192 of 2023
6. The petitioner has filed petitions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai and the said
petitions came to be returned for rectification of some defects and that the
petitioner's Company has re-presented the said petitions along with the
above petitions under Section 473 Cr.P.C. to condone the delay of 408
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
days in re-presenting the said petitions. The learned Magistrate, by
observing that the delay is inappropriate and that the petitions does not
reveal any valid reason, dismissed the petitions. Challenging the said
dismissal orders, the above two revisions came to be filed.
7. The only reason canvassed by the petitioner is that office of their
counsel on record is situated at Madurai and they cannot be able to re-
present the petitions within the time stipulated and hence, there occurred
delay of 408 days in re-presenting the petitions under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and that the delay is neither willful nor wanton and it is beyond
their control.
8. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has
not canvassed any reason or ground for the delay of 408 days, which is
inordinate and the only reason canvassed, by no stretch of imagination,
can be taken as explanation sufficient enough to condone the delay.
9. The learned Magistrate, by observing that the petitioner lodged a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
postal complaint before the jurisdictional police i.e., Ganesh Nagar Police
Station on 12.09.2022, which came to be received by the police on the
next day, that the petitioner had also sent a postal complaint to the
Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai on the same day itself i.e., on
12.09.2022, that the petitioner, without giving any breathing time to the
jurisdictional police, has lodged the complaint with the Superintendent of
Police and by holding that the petitioner has failed to send proper
complaint to the Superintendent of Police, dismissed the petition filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that they have sent a postal complaint to the jurisdictional police on
12.09.2022 and then to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai on
12.10.2022, that the petitioner has specifically mentioned about the dates
in their petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also produced the
necessary proof for sending the complaint and the receipts therefor and
that the learned Magistrate, without considering the dates properly, by
holding that the complaint to the jurisdictional police and the
Superintendent of Police were sent on the same day, dismissed the
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
11. A cursory perusal of the petition filed under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and the records annexed therewith would go to show that the
petitioner sent the postal complaint to the Ganesh Nager Police Station on
12.09.2022, whereas, the complaint to the Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai was sent on 12.10.2022 and as such, the reason assigned for
dismissal cannot be sustained.
12. The learned Magistrate, by observing that the complaint does
not make out any cognizable offence and that the petitioner has not filed
any affidavit duly signed by the applicant, which is mandatory, dismissed
the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the person authorised by the petitioner's Company has filed an
affidavit along with the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and
hence, the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the petition under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not supported by an affidavit is incorrect and
untenable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
14. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner's Company has filed the petition
filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. along with an affidavit signed by its
authorised representative and as such, that part of the finding given by the
learned Magistrate cannot be sustained.
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1287, 1288 and 1289 of 2023
15. The learned Magistrate, after receipt of the petitions filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has decided to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
recorded the sworn statement of the petitioner and thereafter ordered for
enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereby called a report from the
respondent police. The respondent police, after conducting enquiry, has
submitted report. The learned Magistrate, considering the petition filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., sworn statement of the petitioner and other
documents filed by the petitioner and also the report submitted by the
respondent police, by observing that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding further, dismissed the complaints under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
contend that the respondent police, in pursuance of the directions of the
learned Magistrate, conducted enquiry and submitted report stating that
registration of FIR is necessary but the learned Magistrate, without
considering the same in proper perspective, dismissed the petitions.
17. No doubt, the respondent police, in their report, have stated that
they have come to know that the ex-employees of the petitioner's
Company knowing that the towers are without maintenance, with the help
of the owners had dismantled the towers and that they have to gather
particulars of the ex-employees and the offenders of similar type of
offences and hence, registration of FIR and proceed with the investigation,
is necessary.
18. Since the learned Magistrate has proceeded to conduct 202
enquiry, he called for report from the concerned police. Just because, a
report was called for by the learned Magistrate, the report or the decision
arrived at by the police in that report is not binding on the Court and it is
for the Court to consider the materials available and also the report given
by the police to decide whether the complaint is liable to be dismissed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. or to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1229 and 1290 of 2023
19. The learned Magistrate, by observing that the case putforth by
the petitioner is very hard to believe and that the complaints does not
disclose any cognizable offence, dismissed the petitions filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
20. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the common order passed
by this Court in similar type of revision cases (Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646 of
2022 and batch dated 28.08.2022) and the relevant passages are
extracted hereunder:-
“4. In the first batch of Criminal Revision Cases in
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646 of 2022 and batch cases, the
learned Judicial Magistrates of Vadipatti and
Sankarankovil, upon considering the petitions and other
materials available and on hearing the petitioner's side
arguments, have passed the impugned order dismissing the
petitions filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In all the
impugned orders, the learned Judicial Magistrates have
specifically observed that the complaint does not contain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
the averments necessary for deciding as to whether it is to
be forwarded to the concerned police for registration of
F.I.R., and that the complaint does not disclose any of the
cognizable offences. Even according to the petitioner, the
lease/license agreements with the respective landlords
were entered long back and in most of the cases lease
period was over. But according to the petitioner, though
the lease period was over, they are entitled to remain in
possession as lessee holding over.
5. It is not the case of the petitioner that they have
been paying rent to the concerned landlords continuously
till now. The petitioner has not even furnished the
particulars as to when the rent/licence fee was lastly paid
to the respective landlords and as to when the electricity
consumption charges were lastly paid. As already pointed
out, the petitioner in their petitions has stated that the the
dismantle/theft of the mobile tower and the ancillary
equipment came to their notice recently. But they have not
even furnished the date on which they came to know about
the alleged dismantle or theft of the properties.
6. As rightly observed by the learned Judicial
Magistrates, the petitioner has not chosen to produce any
material or records to show that the tower and other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
equipment were in existence continuously till 2020 or 2021
as the case may be and hence, they have come to a
decision that they could not believe that the tower was in
existence in the concerned properties as alleged by the
petitioner till the date of offences alleged. As rightly
contended by the learned Judicial Magistrates, the
petitioner has nowhere whispered in the petitions as to
when the towers in dispute were installed in the respective
sites. Hence, one of the learned Magistrates went to the
extent of saying that it can be seen that when the
installation of mobile tower itself is doubtful, the
petitioner is suppressing the real facts and is trying to get
criminal remedy for the dispute with the landlords which is
of civil nature. But as already pointed out, the petitioner
has alleged that the dismantling / theft was allegedly
committed by some miscreants/unknown persons/landlords
and the petitioner is not sure about the persons who had
committed the dismantling / or theft of the tower and other
equipment.
7. As already pointed out, the petitioner has sought
for a direction for registration of the F.I.R., for the offences
under Sections 378, 405, 441, 424, 425 I.P.C., r/w Section
25 of Indian Telegraph Act. A perusal of the petitioner's
complaint would reveal that the petitioner has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
canvassing a case of theft which attracts punishment upto
3 years. Moreover all other offences alleged by the
petitioner would also attract punishment upto 3 years.
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amritlal vs
Shantilal Soni in Crl.A.No.301 of 2022, dated 28.02.2022,
by referring to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in
Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by
its director Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors.: (2014) 2 SCC 62,
has reiterated the legal position that for the purpose of
computing the period of limitation under Section 468
Cr.P.C., the relevant date is the date of filing of the
complaint or the date of the institution of prosecution and
not the date on which the Judicial Magistrate takes
cognizance. Since all the offences alleged by the petitioner
attract the maximum punishment of 3 years, the petitioner
ought to have filed the complaint within 3 years from the
date of occurrence. Hence it is necessary for the petitioner
to furnish the probable date of the alleged occurrence for
the purpose of computing the period of limitation. As
already pointed out, the petitioner has nowhere whispered
about the date on which the towers were dismantled /
stolen or the date on which, they came to know about the
said dismantlement or the stolen of tower and other
equipment.
8. It is pertinent to mention that the criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
complaints must disclose the particulars of the offence and
a mere quoting of sections of law and the language of the
sections are not sufficient.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would
submit that a similar revision case was filed before the
Principal Seat at Madras and the learned Judge of this
Court has set aside the orders of the learned Judicial
Magistrates in dismissing the petition filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., and ordered to forward the complaint to
the concerned police to conduct preliminary enquiry and
come to a conclusion and as per their conclusion, register
a case and investigate into the same in accordance with
law and file final report. In the said order, the learned
Judge of this Court has also observed that the complaint is
not crystal clear as to when the officials of the petitioner
had visited the premises and when it was found that the
towers were removed and by observing so, instead of
giving a positive direction, the learned Judge has referred
the matter to the respective concerned police, directing
them to conduct a preliminary enquiry.
10. It is pertinent to note that in the second batch of
cases in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.657 of 2022 and batch cases, the
learned Judicial Magistrate of Vedasanthur, after receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
of the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has directed
the concerned police to conduct enquiry and to submit a
report. Accordingly, the concerned police has submitted
reports stating that the petitioner's lease agreements with
the owner of the sites were already over and the petitioner
has failed to pay the monthly rents for nearly 4 years, that
when the rent was demanded from the technician of the
petitioner's company, he has not paid the rent, that when
the owner had directed the said technician to vacate the
property, the petitioner's in-charge officer one
Neethiarasan has dismantled the tower and took away the
equipment on behalf of the petitioner Company and that
when the said Neethiarasan was contacted, he informed
that he was not working in the said Company.
11. On considering the entire case put forth by the
petitioner and the other attendant facts and circumstances
and the impugned orders, it is clearly evident that the
petitioner with some hidden agenda has filed many number
of similar complaints in various Magistrates' Courts
through out TamilNadu by suppressing the material facts
and the real dispute.
12. In the landmark judgment of the State of
Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid
down the categories of instances wherein the inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised, while
deciding the quashment of the complaint or the final
reports and the same are extracted hereunder:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision
in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
13. It is pertinent to note that whether the
allegations in the F.I.R./complaint do not constitute a
cognizable offence and whether the allegations made in
the F.I.R., or complaint are absurd and inherently
improbable, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorised those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
cases as fit cases for quashing the F.I.R/complaint. But
here, the stage is prior to the registration of the F.I.R., and
since the complaints, as rightly observed by the learned
Magistrates, do not disclose the commission of cognizable
offences and the allegations levelled therein are absurd
and inherently improbable. As per the legal dictum laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is absolutely no
chance or occasion for ordering the registration of the
complaints.
14. Moreover, 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,
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 irretrievable break down of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
criminal 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.”
15. 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. In the
case on hand, the learned Judicial Magistrates have held
that the petitioner by filing the above complaints, has been
attempting to give a civil dispute a criminal colour/
flavour.
16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would
contend that since their petitions disclose the commission
of cognizable offence, as per the dictum laid by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumar's case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
Judicial Magistrates are duty bound to forward the
complaint to the concerned police for registration of F.I.R.,
and they have no power or jurisdiction to dismiss the same
by themselves.
17. I find absolutely no merit in the said line of
arguments. In my considered view, 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 Magistrates to refer the
complaint to the concerned police for registration of the
case. But it is pertinent to note that it is always open to
the petitioner to file a private complaint and proceed to
prosecute the accused even if the Judicial Magistrate
refuses to exercise the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Moreover, the Magistrate has power even under Section
202 Cr.P.C., to order investigation even after taking
cognizance of the offence. It is settled position of law that
the Judicial Magistrates while exercising powers under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., cannot act as a post office and he
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. Moreover, it cannot be said that the
order of Magistrate refusing to direct the police to register
the F.I.R., completely shut out all the opportunities for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
complainant. If the petitioner is having necessary
particulars and materials to show a prima facie case
against the proposed accused, he can very well file a
private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and there is
absolutely no bar or prohibition for filing the private
complaint on the ground that the petition filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was dismissed by the Magistrate.
18. At this juncture it is necessary to refer the
decision of this Court in Nathan Vs. Vaithinathan and
Others reported in 1975 Crl.L.J.994, wherein this Court
has specifically held that the order under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., had been passed by the learned Magistrate in the
enquiry into the complaint given by the police and
therefore, Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., would apply and as such,
no revision lies against the interlocutory order passed by
the learned Magistrate.
19. It is also necessary to refer the decision of this
Court in R.Vijay Vs. Sivaram in Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2019,
dated 29.08.2019. A learned Judge of this Court, after
referring to the judgment in Nathan's case, has held that
the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is not revisable
under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., and the relevant passage is
extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
“7. In Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West
Bengal 4, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court
has held in paragraph No.50 of its judgment, that an
order of further investigation is an executive order
and is not a judicial order. Thus, when an order under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. itself has been held to be an
executive order, an order under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. passed even before the Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offence, can, by no stretch of
imagination, be held to be otherwise.
In view of the above, this petition is closed with
liberty to the petitioner to prefer a private complaint
and the Trial Court shall proceed to examine the
same without in any manner being influenced by the
dismissal of the petition under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.”
20. Viewing from any angle, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the Criminal Revision Cases are
unsustainable, both on law as well as on facts. Hence, this
Court concludes that all the Criminal Revision Cases are
liable to be dismissed. ”
21. The above decision is squarely applicable to the present batch of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
revision cases also.
22. As noted earlier, the learned Magistrates, erred in overlooking
the facts that the petitioner has filed the affidavit in support of the
petitions filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and that the complaint was
sent to the Superintendent of Police by giving breathing time to the
jurisdictional police. However, remitting these revisions back to the
concerned Magistrate Court or condoning the delay in re-presenting the
petitions filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and remitting back to the
concerned Magistrate Court, would serve no purpose. This Court has
already held that the complaints do not disclose cognizable offences, the
allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, and there is absolutely
no chance of for ordering registration of the complaints.
23. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that
the revisions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
24. In the result, these Criminal Revision Cases stand dismissed. No
costs.
11.03.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Paramakudi.
3.The Judicial Magistrate,
Vedasandhur.
4.The Judicial Magistrate,
Nilakottai.
5.The Judicial Magistrate,
Tenkasi.
6.The Judicial Magistrate II,
Sattur.
7.The Inspector of Police,
Eriyodu Police Station,
Eriyodu, Dindigul.
8.The Inspector of Police,
Ammayanaickanur Police Station,
Gullalagundu, Ammayanaickanur,
Dindigul-624201.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
9.The Inspector of Police,
Pattiveeranpatti Police Station,
Pattiveeranpatti,
Dindigul-624211.
10.The Inspector of Police,
Emaneshwaram Police Station,
Nainar Kovil Road, Jeeva Nagar,
Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram-623707.
11.The Inspector of Police,
Chokkampatti Police Station,
Madurai-Kollam Main Road,
Chokkampatti, Tenkasi-627751.
12.The Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Bose Nagar, Pudukottai-622001.
13.The Inspector of Police,
Sattur Town Police Station,
Sattur Sub Division,
Virudhunagar.
14.The Inspector of Police,
Sattur Taluk Police Station,
Sattur Sub Division,
Virudhunagar.
15.The Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
Sattur Sub Division,
Virudhunagar.
16.The Inspector of Police,
Tenkasi Police Station,
Tenkasi-627811.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1229,
1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
17.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Pre-Delivery Common Order made in
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1190, 1191, 1192, 1193,
1229, 1234, 1287, 1288, 1289 and 1290 of 2023
Dated : 11.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )
