The court affirmed that criminal proceedings should not be used to resolve civil disputes, emphasizing the discretion of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to dismiss petitions lacking merit.

ORDER :

1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2085 of 2024, dated 28.11.2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Sivagiri, Tenkasi District, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property and buildings situated in S.No.620/1 and 619/27, which admeasures 45 cents in Sivagiri Village (part-II) Tenkasi District, originally belonged to the petitioner's grandmother Kulanthai Rani @ Sivagnana Natchiar; that the petitioner's grandmother died intestate on 10.11.1977 and her grandfather Ponnusamy Pandian also died intestate on 25.06.1991; that patta for the said property in dispute stands in the name of the petitioner's grandfather in patta No. 3311; that after the death of the petitioner's grandparents, the property came to be owned by their legal heirs/petitioner's mother Vijayarani @ Palanimuthu Veerammal Natchiar, Gomathi Gurumuthu Natchiar @ Kalaivani, P.M.M.M.I.Pandian, P.M.V.S.V.Pandian, P.Venkatesan and Snehavalli Muthu Meenatchi @ Devi; that the petitioner's mother died on 03.07.2020 leaving behind three sons, three daughters including the petitioner; that since they were not in a position to enjoy the property jointly, the petitioner started to take necessary steps for partitioning the properties in February 2024; that the said P.M.M.M.I.Pandian, P.M.V.S.V.Pandian, P.Venkatesan, with sole intention not to give any share, had executed fraudulent sale deeds in favour of one Arunachalam, who was residing nearby the property in dispute; that the petitioner sent a petition on 16.04.2024 to the Sub Registrar Office, Sivagiri not to register any documents of alienation and other encumbrance in respect of the property in dispute; that despite the objections from the petitioner and his sisters, the Sub Registrar permitted to register the fraudulent sale deeds, vide document Nos.838/2024, 839/2024 and 840/2024 without verifying the death and legal heirs certificate of Late.Ponnusamy Pandian; that when the petitioner was verifying the encumbrance on 23.05.2024, he came to know that they have created fraudulent settlement deeds vide document No.514/2013, 515/2013 and 516/2013 and on that basis, they have executed fraudulent sale deeds in favour of said Arunachalam, his daughter Muthulakshmi and son Kaliraj; that the said P.M.M.I.Pandian, P.M.V.S.V.Pandian and P.Venkatesan with an intention to grab the property of other sharers and in collusion with the neighbor Arunachalam, his son and daughter. had fraudulently created sale deeds and thereby caused loss to the petitioner and other sharers; that the petitioner sent complaint to the District Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi on 30.05.2024, but directed them to approach the competent Court to redress their grievance and that the petitioner with no other option has filed the present petition under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court seeking direction to register a case and proceed with the investigation; that the learned Magistrate, without considering the factual aspects of the case in proper perspective, dismissed the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., vide order, dated 28.11.2024 and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the present revision.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi, taking the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on file in Crl.M.P.No.2085 of 2024, called for a report from the concerned Police and upon perusing the petition and petitioner's affidavit and the reports submitted by the police and on hearing the petitioner's side, has passed the impugned order, dated 28.11.2024 by holding that there existed property dispute between the parties and that the same has to be decided in the civil suit pending between the parties, dismissed the petition.

4. Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Ho