Madras High Court
Karthick vs Jaikumar Christhurajan on 14 March, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.46 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 26.02.2025
Pronounced on : 14.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.46 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.598 of 2025
1.Karthick
2.Mariyaseena
3.Maria Johnson ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Jaikumar Christhurajan
2.The Inspector of Police,
Manavalakurichi Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to set aside the judgment dated 20.12.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.
1941 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel by
allowing the above criminal revision petition.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.46 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Deenadayalan
for Mr.M.Viji
For R1 : Mr.Ka.Ramakrishnan
For R2 : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.1941 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024 under Section 175(3) BNSS
on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.
2. The first respondent/complainant has filed a petition under
Section 175(3) BNSS seeking direction to the Inspector of Police,
Vellichanthai Police Station to register a case and for investigation. The
learned Judicial Magistrate, taking into the petition filed under Section
175(3) BNSS on file in Crl.M.P.No.1941 of 2024 and upon perusing the
petition and the first respondent's affidavit and on hearing the first
respondent's side, has passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2024
directing the second respondent police to proceed in accordance with the
Chapter XIII of BNSS 2023 and file the final report within the time
prescribed by the law. To put it in other way, the learned Magistrate has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
directed the second respondent police to register a case, to proceed with
the investigation and file a final report within the time prescribed by the
law. Challenging the above order, the proposed accused have preferred the
present revision.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would
raise the maintainability issue that the order passed under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. or 175(3) BNSS directing registration of the case cannot be
challenged and relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
HDFC Securities Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
reported in 2016 (4) Crimes 395 (SC),
“24.It appears to us that the appellants approached
the High Court even before the stage of issuance of
process. In particular, the appellants challenged the order
dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants after summarizing their
arguments in the matter have emphasized also in the
context of the fundamental rights of the appellants under
the Constitution, that the order impugned has caused
grave inequities to the appellants. In the circumstances, it
was submitted that the order is illegal and is an abuse of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
the process of law. However, it appears to us that this
order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requiring
investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused
an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage,
requires quashing of the investigation. We must keep in our
mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only after
the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate.
Therefore, in our opinion, at this stage the High Court has
correctly assessed the facts and the law in this situation
and held that filing of the petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at
this stage are nothing but premature. Further, in our
opinion, the High Court correctly came to the conclusion
that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. In these circumstances,
we do not find that there is any flaw in the impugned order
or any illegality has been committed by the High Court in
dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants before the
High Court. Accordingly, we affirm the order so passed by
the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. The appeal is
dismissed.”
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners have not invoked Article 227 of the Constitution or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) challenging the order passed by
the learned Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, but on the other hand,
the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS, that three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and another
reported in 2016 (16) SCC 30 has held that in addition to the revision, the
party aggrieved can also invoke Article 227 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., that
the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Arun P. Gidh Vs.
Chandraprakash Singh and others reported in 2024 (2) MLJ (Cri.) 279
has held that revision can be filed against the order of the learned
Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing registration of
the case and that therefore, the present revision is legally maintainable.
5. As already pointed out, the petitioners have only invoked the
revisional jurisdiction of the Court under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS. In
Prabhu Chawla's case referred above, the three-Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2009) 2 SCC 370 that only because a revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
petition is maintainable, the same by itself would not constitute a bar for
entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code and even where
a revision application is barred, the remedies under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India would be available.
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has specifically held
that the revisional Court can interfere with an order under Section 156(3)
at the stage and the extent indicated in the said order. Hence, the objection
of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that revision itself
is not maintainable, cannot be sustained.
7. The first respondent alleges that the second petitioner and the first
respondent's mother are the legal heirs of the late JPR, their grandfather.
Following JPR's demise, the petitioners purportedly fabricated documents
to gain control of JPR Fishing Harbour Private Limited. Previous legal
proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal and the High
Court reportedly found that the petitioners had indeed fabricated
documents and had no legitimate connection to the harbour. After the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
respondent's mother passed away, they visited the harbour to pay respects.
However, the petitioners allegedly incited proposed accused 4 and 5, along
with 25 others, to converge on the harbour with deadly weapons. This
group purportedly assembled unlawfully, trespassed into the office,
damaged property, and subjected the first respondent to verbal abuse and
criminal intimidation. Furthermore, they allegedly stole the first
respondent's gold chain, watch, computer, and office documents. The first
respondent claims to have filed a complaint with the Vellichanthai Police
Station on July 28, 2024, but received no response. An online complaint
was submitted on August 14, 2024, which led to the registration of CSR
No.454 of 2024. However, no further action was taken. The first
respondent then sent a complaint to the District Superintendent of Police
on August 30, 2024, but again received no response. Consequently, the
first respondent was constrained to file a petition under Section 175(3)
BNSS.
8. The learned Magistrate, by referring to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case, has observed “it
discloses a criminal petition which appears that it come across the alleged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
offences which some are cognizable offence in nature” and on that basis,
directed the second respondent police to proceed in accordance with the
Chapter XIII of BNSS 2023.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the incidents alleged in the first respondent's complaint strain
credulity.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that Section 175(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (BNSS) mandates
that the Magistrate hear the respondent police before passing an order.
They would argue that the impugned order, having been passed without
complying with this requirement, is unsustainable. In support of this
contention, they would rely on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's recent
decision in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (Crl.A. No.
352 of 2020), dated 16.01.2025 and it is necessary to refer the following
passages:-
“29.Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to Section
156 of the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) of Section 175 of the
BNSS is in pari materia with sub-section 156(1) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
Cr.P.C. except for the proviso which empowers the
Superintendent of Police to direct the Deputy
Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the nature
or gravity of the case so requires. Sub-section (2) of
Section 175 the BNSS is identical to Section 156(2) of the
Cr.P.C. Section 175(3) of the BNSS empowers any
Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under
Section 210 to order investigation in accordance with
Section 175(1) and to this extent is in pari materia with
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, unlike Section 156(3)
of the Cr.P.C., any Magistrate, before ordering
investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, is required
to:
a. Consider the application, supported by an affidavit,
made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police
under Section 173(4) of the BNSS;
b. Conduct such inquiry as he thinks necessary; and
c. Consider the submissions made by the police officer.
30.Sub-section (4) of Section 175 of the BNSS is a
new addition to the scheme of investigation of cognizable
cases when compared with the scheme previously existing
in Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. It provides an additional
safeguard to a public servant against whom an accusation
of committing a cognizable offence arising in the course of
discharge of his official duty is made. The provision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
stipulates that any Magistrate who is empowered to take
cognizance under Section 210 of the BNSS may order
investigation against a public servant upon receiving a
complaint arising in course of the discharge of his official
duty, only after complying with the following procedure:
a. Receiving a report containing facts and
circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to
the accused public servant; and
b. Considering the assertions made by the accused
public servant as regards the situation that led to the
occurrence of the alleged incident.
31.A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with
Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. indicates three prominent
changes that have been introduced by the enactment of
BNSS as follows:
a. First, the requirement of making an application to
the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in
charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made
mandatory, and the applicant making an application under
Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the
application made to the Superintendent of Police under
Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the
application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).
b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to
conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
making an order directing registration of FIR.
c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the
submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as
regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any
directions under Section 175(3).”
11. It is pertinent to note that additional safeguards were introduced
only to curb the misuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate by
unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives. In the case on hand,
in the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has not stated as to whether
any report was called from the respondent police or whether the
respondent police was heard prior to passing of the impugned order. The
very purpose of taking report or hearing the respondent police is only to
help the Court to arrive at a decision before passing any order under
Section 175(3) BNSS either for registration of the case or for dismissal of
the same. Moreover, as already pointed out, Section 175(3) BNSS
contemplates that the Magistrate has to conduct such enquiry as deems
necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. In the case
on hand, there is nothing to infer from the impugned order that the learned
Magistrate has conducted any sort of enquiry before passing the impugned
order directing registration of FIR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
12. Considering the above, since the learned Magistrate has not
followed the requirements under Section 175(3) BNSS, the impugned
order directing registration of the case cannot legally be sustained.
13. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the second respondent would submit that in pursuance of the direction
of the learned Magistrate, enquiry was conducted elaborately and filed a
report concluding that the first respondent has lodged a false complaint.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would
strongly contend that the second respondent in pursuance of the direction
of the learned Magistrate is duty bound to register the FIR and then to
investigate but now the second respondent, by violating the directions of
the learned Magistrate, has conducted some sort of enquiry and allegedly
filed a closure report and that therefore, the very closure report, in the
absence of registration of FIR, cannot legally be sustained.
15. Although the learned Magistrate directed the second respondent
police to proceed under Chapter XIII of the BNSS 2023, effectively
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
ordering the registration of an FIR due to the complaint disclosing
cognizable offenses, this Court has already determined that the impugned
order lacks legal sustainability. Consequently, the first respondent's
contention regarding the non-registration of the FIR and the filing of the
closure report cannot be entertained. Nevertheless, given that the second
respondent has submitted a report, the learned Magistrate is directed to
treat the report filed by the police as the submission of the police under
Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. and to proceed further.
16. In conclusion, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the
impugned order dated December 20, 2024, is set aside. The learned
Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, is directed to issue notice to the first
respondent/complainant, hear the parties, and pass orders in accordance
with the law. Consequently. connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
14.03.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Eraniel.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Manavalakurichi Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Pre-Delivery Order made in
and
Dated : 14.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 03:56:17 pm )
