Madras High Court
Balasubramanian vs K.Manivel on 21 March, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.335 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 17.03.2025
Pronounced on : 21.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.335 of 2025
Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Manivel
2.The State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur, Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the order as made in Crl.M.P.No.482 of 2024 dated
20.01.2025 as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, Karur
District and subsequently set aside the same forthwith in the above
criminal revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham
For R2 : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.335 of 2025
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.482 of 2024 dated 20.01.2025 on the file of the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, dismissing the petition filed under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a
finance investment company under the name and style of Kandhamurugan
finance at NRMP Street, Kovai Road, Karur for the past 10 years, that the
first respondent, who is an advocate, is having office in the very same
building, that both of them had started Sri Vetri Vinayaga Finance
Company near Thirumalai School Vengamedu, that since there arose some
misunderstanding between the partners, the petitioner has come out of the
partnership firm on 05.07.2023, that the petitioner had obtained loan of
Rs.5 lakhs from the first respondent but he paid Rs.10 lakhs towards
principal and interest, that when the petitioner was not available, the
second respondent had removed the finance company rubber stamp and
other seal from the room occupied by them jointly earlier and issued a
notice, as if, the petitioner and his partners had obtained loan of Rs.5
lakhs, that when the same was questioned, the first respondent abused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
petitioner in filthy language and caused criminal intimidation, that the first
respondent had also taken the documents containing the petitioner's
signature and other documents containing firm transactions along with
table, that when the petitioner demanded the first respondent to return the
table, he threatened and insisted to pay the amount and get back the table,
that compromise attempted by the partners were of no avail, that the
petitioner has then sent a complaint to the Karur Bar Association and at
the enquiry conducted by the office bearers, the first respondent was
warned and directed to return the table, but he has not complied with the
same, that the petitioner has sent a complaint to the District
Superintendent of Police on 13.12.2023 and at the enquiry conducted at
Karur Town Police Station on 26.12.2023, the first respondent has come
along with 15 advocates and abused the petitioner and refused to hand
over the table, that the petitioner has sent a complaint to the Inspector
General of Police on 05.01.2024 and at the enquiry, the first respondent
has come with advocates and gave false particulars and also threatened the
petitioner to return Rs.30 lakhs and that since there was no further action
on the part of the second respondent police, the petitioner was constrained
to file the present petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, taking the petition filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on file in Crl.M.P.No.482 of 2024 and upon
perusing the petition and petitioner's affidavit and on hearing the
petitioner's side, has passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2025, by
holding that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory
requirements and that there was no scope for proceeding further, dismissed
the petition.
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: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
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
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 according to the petitioner, himself
and the first respondent were partners of Sri Vetri Vinayaga Finance
Company.
7. According to the petitioner, he obtained loan of Rs.5 lakhs from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
the first respondent and though the same was repaid with interest at Rs.10
lakhs, the first respondent has been demanding more amount and he had
taken the rubber stamp and seals and documents containing the petitioner's
signature and other papers along with table available in the office room
used by both of them earlier. The learned Magistrate has specifically
observed that the petitioner has not produced any materials prima facie to
show that he obtained loan and paid the same with exorbitant interest,
totally at Rs.10 lakhs.
8. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side), even according to the petitioner, he has come out of the
partnership business with the first respondent and if that be so, he has not
given any reason or explanation as to why he kept his table or the
documents containing his signature in the room used by both of them
earlier as partners of their firm. It is not the case of the petitioner that he
was in continuous possession of the said room used by both of them
earlier.
9. Considering the petitioner's complaint and the affidavit filed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
support of the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is clearly
evident that there existed money transaction dispute between the parties
and that the petitioner has been attempting to give money dispute a
criminal color.
10. The learned Magistrate, in the impugned order, has also
observed that the petitioner has not sent any complaint to the jurisdictional
police station and in case of the failure on the part of the jurisdictional
police to take action, he should have sent a complaint to the
Superintendent of Police and even if there is no action, he is entitled to
approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and that the records would reveal that the petitioner has not sent any
complaint to the Inspector of Police as contemplated under Section 154(1)
Cr.P.C.
11. It is settled law that in order to make a duly constituted
application for invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., compliance of subsections (1) & (3)
of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. would be absolutely necessary and it is sine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
qua non for making the application maintainable under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. The petitioner before filing the petition under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. has to file a complaint before the jurisdictional police and in case
of their failure to register the complaint, he has to approach the
Superintendent of Police for the said purpose and even thereafter,
complaint is not registered, then he has to approach the jurisdictional
Magistrate.
12. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner sent a complaint to the jurisdictional police as contemplated
under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. Despite the specific observation made by the
learned Magistrate, the petitioner has not produced any iota of materials to
show his compliance under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C.
13. Considering the above, this Court has no other option but to say
that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirements
before filing the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Viewing from any
angle, the impugned order dismissing the petition filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
Consequently, this Court concludes that the revision is devoid of merit and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. No
costs.
21.03.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur, Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Order made in
Dated : 21.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:08 pm )
