Judicial Magistrates have discretion under Section 156(3) to refuse police investigation if claims are unsubstantiated, emphasizing the need for evidence before directing an FIR.

ORDER :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner's daughter Revathi and the first respondent was solemnized on 02.03.2015, that the petitioner has given 60 sovereigns of gold jewels, cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and household articles worth about Rs.5,00,000/- and also 5 sovereigns of jewels to the first respondent, that the said Revathi, after marriage, had been living with her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband/respondents 1 to 4 herein as a joint family at Chennai, that though the said Revathi was working in TVS Auto log and was getting monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-, the private respondents had directed the said Revathi not to go for work and also demanded more dowry, that the private respondents had directed the said Revathi to get Rs.15,00,000/- from her parents for getting the property in othi and accordingly, the petitioner has arranged and sent Rs.15,00,000/-, that the said Revathi gave birth to a female child on 02.12.2015 in Keerthika Hospital, Madurai and when the same was informed to the private respondents, they have not turned up, that when the said Revathi visited her matrimonial home, the respondents 2 and 3 had threatened her not to return to the matrimonial home with female child, that the private respondents had been harassing the said Revathi and also demanded more dowry, that subsequently the said Revathi was affected by cancer and the private respondents have not provided proper food and treatment to her, that the petitioner alone has sent money for the treatment and for her food, that the said Revathi died on 14.07.2023 and on the third day ceremony, the private respondents had agreed to return 60 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash of Rs.10,00,000/- given at the time of marriage and Rs.15,00,000/- given for othi, but subsequently they have not chosen to return the same, that the petitioner has sent a complaint to the fifth respondent on 10.03.2024 and without conducting any enquiry, CSR alone came to be issued, that the petitioner has then sent a complaint to the District Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar on 13.03.2024 and that since there was no action, the petitioner was constrained to file the above petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, taking the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on file in Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2024 and upon perusing the petition and the petitioner's affidavit and on hearing the arguments of the petitioner's side, has passed the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 holding that there was no scope for proceeding further, dismissed the petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his arguments would reiterate the petition contentions and further stated that the learned Magistrate, without considering the factual aspects of the case in proper perspective, has dismissed the petition mechanically and that therefore the petitioner was constrained to file the present revision.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that the first respondent had been living with his wife Revathi happily and due to their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child, that when the first respondent's wife Revathi was alive, neither his wife Revathi nor the petitioner has lodged any complaint with regard to the alleged dowry demand or with regard to any other harassment allegedly meted out to her, that since