Madras High Court

S.Mageswari vs Nurul Arasi on 14 March, 2025

                                                                                          Crl.R.C.(MD)No.244 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.244 of 2025


                    S.Mageswari                                                                   ... Petitioner



                                                                 Vs.

                    1.Nurul Arasi

                    2.P.Arumuga Selvan

                    3.K.Ragupathi                                                                 ... Respondents

                    Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
                    B.N.S.S., to call for record and allow this revision by reversing and setting
                    aside order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
                    Tiruchendur in C.C.No.466 of 2022.

                                     For Petitioner       : Mr.M.Jaisingh

                                     For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson



                    1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:43:22 pm )
                                                                                        Crl.R.C.(MD)No.244 of 2025




                                                          ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in

C.C.No.466 of 2022 dated 02.12.2023 on the file of the Court of the

Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, dismissing the private complaint under

Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that the petitioner

worked as a housemaid in the house of the first respondent, that the

petitioner was insisted to buy the house property nearby Kayalpattinam by

the first respondent and she introduced the respondents 2 and 3, who are

relatives to each other, that the respondents had taken the petitioner to a

plot situated at Survey No.507/1B, Thaikapuram, Kayalpattinam South

Village and informed that the price of the plot is Rs.3,50,000/-, that though

the petitioner had hesitated to buy the plot, the third respondent agreed to

receive the amount in installments, that the petitioner had paid Rs.15,000/-

on 01.09.2021 to the third respondent in the presence of the first

respondent, Rs.50,000/- on 07.09.2021 to the second respondent in the

presence of the first respondent, Rs.2,50,000/- on 16.09.2021 to the

second respondent in the presence of the respondents 1 and 3 and again

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:43:22 pm )

Rs.21,000/- on 20.09.2021 to the first respondent and lastly Rs.5,000/- on

24.09.2021 which came to be transferred by the petitioner's friend to the

account of the second respondent through G-pay, that the second

respondent has executed an unregistered agreement, that when the

petitioner asked the respondents for registering the sale deed, the

respondents 2 and 3 informed that they have not had DTCP approval, that

the petitioner has then requested the respondents to refund the amount

received, that the respondents had paid Rs.2,50,000/- on 23.04.2022 and

Rs.17,000/- on 09.05.2022 but they have not returned the remaining

amount of Rs.74,000/-, that the petitioner has sent a legal notice on

17.09.2022, for which, the third respondent sent a reply and that the

petitioner sent a complaint to Arumuganeri Police Station and also to the

District Superintendent of Police and since there was no action, the

petitioner was constrained to file a private complaint under Section 200

Cr.P.C.

3. It is evident from the records that the learned Magistrate has

taken the complaint on file in C.C.No.466 of 2022, that the learned

Magistrate has recorded sworn statement of the petitioner and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:43:22 pm )

statement of the two other witnesses produced by the petitioner, that

subsequently the learned Magistrate has directed for an investigation and

report from the Inspector of Police (Crime Branch), Arumuganeri Police

Station under Section 202 Cr.P.C., that the said Inspector of Police, in

pursuance of the directions, has conducted investigation and submitted a

report and that the learned Magistrate, considering the complaint,

statement of the witnesses and the report filed by the police, by observing

that the petitioner has not shown any prima facie case to proceed against

the accused, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

Challenging the dismissal of the private complaint, the present revision

came to be filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the trial Court erred in passing observations with regard to the merits

of the case, that though the petitioner had hesitated to buy the plot, the

respondents insisted the petitioner to buy the plot and since the third

respondent agreed to receive the sale price in installments, the petitioner

had paid the amount demanded, that the second respondent had executed

an unregistered agreement and directed the petitioner to pay the balance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:43:22 pm )

amount of Rs.4,000/-, that when the petitioner had requested the

respondents to register the plot, she was informed that they have not had

DTCP approval and that though the petitioner had demanded refund of the

amount, the respondents have only paid Rs.2,50,000/-.

5. It is evident from the records that the Inspector of Police,

Arumuganeri Police Station examined the witnesses and the

respondents/proposed accused and filed a report stating that the

respondents have received Rs.2,65,000/- and since there was no approval,

they have repaid Rs.2,63,000/- and balance amount to be paid is only Rs.

2,000/-.

6. A cursory perusal of the petitioner's complaint would only reveal

that there existed money dispute with regard to the land dealing. Even

according to the petitioner, the respondents have returned Rs.2,67,000/-

and they have to pay the balance amount of Rs.74,000/-.

7. Though the learned Magistrate has observed that there are

alterations in the amount portion of the agreement, the petitioner has not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:43:22 pm )

chosen to produce the same before this Court. Moreover, the learned

Magistrate has specifically observed that there existed money disputes

between the parties and there is absolutely no prima facie materials to

proceed against the accused for the offence of cheating.

8. At this juncture, 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:43:22 pm )

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:43:22 pm )

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.”

9. 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.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking

note of the materials available on record, this Court has no hesitation to

hold that the petitioner has been attempting to give civil dispute a criminal

color and that there are absolutely no prima facie materials to proceed

against the accused for the alleged offences and as such, the impugned

order dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the learned

Magistrate cannot be found fault with. Consequently, this Court concludes

that the revision is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.