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, 5/30 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 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/ 6/30 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 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 7/30 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 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.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1234 of 20239. The learned Magistrate, by observing that the petitioner lodged a 8/30 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 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.
9/30https://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.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1193 of 202312. 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.
10/30https://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 11/30 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 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 12/30 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 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 13/30 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 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 14/30 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 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 15/30 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 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 16/30 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 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 17/30 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 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 18/30 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 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 19/30 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 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 20/30 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 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 21/30 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 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 22/30 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 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 23/30 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 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 24/30 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 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:
25/30https://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 26/30 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 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.
27/30https://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.
28/30https://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.
29/30https://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 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 03:37:33 pm )