Madras High Court
M.Anbalagan vs Moorthi on 10 March, 2026
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 12.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
CRL RC(MD). No.229 of 2025
M.Anbalagan ... petitioner
Vs.
1. Moorthi
2. Kavitha
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur Town and District. ... Respondents
(R3 and R4 impleaded as per order of the Court dated 04.03.2025 in
Crl.Mp(MD) No.2830 of 2025 in Crl.Rc (MD) No.229 of 2025 by KMSJ)
PRAYER :- This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and
401 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 438 and 442 BNSS, to call for the
records and set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.6430 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm )
Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025
2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur District, by
allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
For petitioner : Mr. Arul Jenifer,
for M/s. KBS Law Office
For Respondents : Mr.V.Karuna
for R1 and R2
Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
for R3 and R4
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.-I, Karur district, dated 06.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.6430 of 2023 whereby the Petition filed under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code was rejected on the premise that it was found that the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the dispute was primarily civil in nature.
2. Petitioner runs a Garment business under the name and style of “Home Style Export”. Respondents 1 and 2 approached the petitioner for supply of towels towards petitioner’s export business and petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025 agreed to the same. Between July, 2022 to January, 2023, petitioner paid respondents 1 and 2 a sum of Rs.10,20,500/- via bank transfers and cash. Respondents 1 and 2 initially supplied goods worth Rs.3,95,010/- and also took samples cloth worth Rs.2,84,000/- from petitioner, by raising corresponding vouchers, however no payments were made. Thus an amount of Rs.9,09,490/- was due to the petitioner from the respondents 1 and 2 against the above business transactions. Since respondents 1 and 2 did not supply towels as agreed upon, petitioner started demanding money or supply of towels as contractually agreed upon. However, respondents 1 and 2 refused to pay the amounts stated to be due nor supplied the goods as promised. Instead, criminally intimidated the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner lodged a complaint dated 31.08.2023, before respondent Police. However, that was not acted upon. In such circumstance, petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.6430 of 2023 under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code to direct the police to register an FIR against respondents 1 and 2 for cheating under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and criminal conspiracy under Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, before Judicial Magistrate-I, Karur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025
3. The Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 06.12.2023 dismissed the Petition filed under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code on finding the following:
A) The Court found that the transaction in question was a regular business transaction and dispute civil in nature rather than a criminal offence.
B) Mere breach of a contract may not amount to cheating unless intention to deceive existed at the time of making the promise. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in M. Selvakumar vs. Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station., in Cr.R.C. (MD)No.185 of 2012.
C) The very fact that the respondents 1 and 2 did in fact supplied towels worth Rs.3,95,010/- would indicate lack of criminal intent to cheat the petitioner which is a sine qua non for Section 420 of IPC to get attracted.
D) Court found no cognizable offence or prima facie evidence warranting registration of an FIR and rejected the petition treating it as a civil dispute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025
4. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred this revision petition inter alia on the following grounds:
A) The impugned order erred in treating the case as a civil dispute ignoring specific allegations of criminal intimidation and cheating.
B) There is misapplication of law as laid down by the Constitution bench in Lalita Kumari's case wherein it has been held that once a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, an FIR must be registered followed by investigation.
C) The impugned order fails to see that non-payment of Rs.9,09,490/-
after promising to pay clearly constitutes cheating in terms of Section 415 of IPC, thereby attracting Section 420 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC.
5. Heard both sides.
6. This court is of the view that the impugned order may not warrant interference for the following reasons:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025
i) It is trite that Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., cannot be used as a means to convert a dispute which is primarily civil in nature into a criminal offence. This Court does not find any reason why the order of the Magistrate ought to be interfered inasmuch as the order of the Magistrate finding that there was no intent nor is the condition precedent for attracting Section 415 read with Section 420 of IPC viz., cheating been established, a finding which is neither perverse nor arbitrary.
ii) Further, it is trite that matters primarily civil in nature would not be entertained under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. This Court is conscious of the view that the same transaction can give rise to cause of action which are civil as well as criminal in nature. However, in the present case, as found in the impugned order ingredients of cheating have not been shown to exist does not appear to be perverse, arbitrary warranting interference. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments wherein the scope of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., vis-
a-vis entertaining complaints against disputes which are primarily civil in nature has been deprecated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025
i) Thermax Ltd. v. K.M. Johny, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 412:
“34. The principles enunciated from the above quoted decisions clearly show that for proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Code, the complaint must disclose relevant material ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. If there is a flavour of civil nature, the same cannot be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. If there is huge delay and in order to avoid the period of limitation, it cannot be resorted to as a criminal proceeding.” (emphasis supplied)
ii) Athul Dhale v. State, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 23406 “35. It has to see that, whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. In the present case, the averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the second respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the second respondent against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of process of Court and it is liable to be quashed.” (emphasis supplied)
7. Yet another reason which weighed with the trial Court in rejecting the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., is that one of the essential ingredients for cheating viz., intent to deceive at the time of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025 making the promise was absent on facts. While on this aspect it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments wherein the ingredients of cheating has been explained.
i) Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 670 :
11. As already noticed, the complaint was filed on 17-5-1999 after a lapse of 10-1/2 years and, therefore, the very private complaint filed by Respondent 1 is not at all maintainable at this distance of time. It is the specific case of Accused 1 that he has not executed any agreement to sell or received any advance payment. In our view, the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of Section 415 CrPC and, therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence alleged. It is also not clearly proved that to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The order of the Magistrate and of the High Court requiring Accused 1-appellant herein to face trial would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for setting aside the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court for issuance of process and the proceedings itself.
(emphasis supplied)
ii) Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462:
“9. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties. The Respondent No. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant - herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the Respondent No. 4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant.
10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality.” (emphasis supplied)
8. The trial Court prima facie found on facts that the respondents 1 and 2 had pursuant to the agreement with petitioner in fact supplied a portion of the towels promised, to the extent of Rs.3,95,010/-, which were indicative of lack of intent to deceive at the time of making the promise. Thus no prima facie case was made out to direct registration of an FIR, moreso, the dispute between petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 are civil in nature. Thus, this Court does not any find reason to interfere with the order of trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025
9. Having said that, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to work out its remedies in the manner known to law including Section 200 of Cr.PC. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. No costs.
10.03.2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking order spp https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025 To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur Town and District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm ) Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J spp Crl.RC(MD) No.229 of 2025 10.03.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:10:22 pm )