Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. Murali Shankar, J.
Gokila - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 336 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Prasanna
For the Respondent: B. Thanga Aravindh
The court ruled that a Magistrate can dismiss a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. if the dispute is civil in nature, emphasizing that civil matters should not be pursued through criminal channels.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Criminal Revision against dismissal of petition for investigation - The petitioner alleged illegal trespass and theft of crops by respondents, but the Magistrate held the dispute to be civil in nature and dismissed the petition - The petitioner claimed a cognizable offence was disclosed, but the court found no merit in this argument. (Paras 2, 3, 10, 11)
(B) Nature of Dispute - The court emphasized that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal matters to seek quicker relief, referencing the Supreme Court's stance against such practices. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed her husband had exclusive possession of agricultural land and that respondents threatened and illegally harvested crops. Complaints were made to the police, but no action was taken, leading to the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The learned Magistrate correctly identified the dispute as civil and dismissed the petition, affirming that the petitioner could pursue a private complaint if desired. (Paras 10, 12)
Issues: The main issue was whether the dispute was criminal or civil in nature and the Magistrate's authority to dismiss the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Paras 3, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate is not obliged to refer a complaint for investigation if it is deemed civil in nature, and the petitioner retains the option to file a private complaint. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1447 of 2024, dated 16.08.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aranthangi, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that her husband Kumar has right and exclusive possession over the property in S.No. 21/11 to an extent of 0.14.60 Ares out of 0.58.5 Ares and S.No.29/9B to an extent of 0.08.3 Ares at Pandipathiram Village, Avudayarkoil Taluk, Pudukkottai District; that since the petitioner's husband is working in Chennai, she has been taking care of the agricultural operations in the said properties; that the petitioner cultivated paddy in the year 2023 and when it was ready for harvest in January 2024, the respondents 3 to 5 gave an open threat on 20.01.2024 that they would do harvest in the fields; that the petitioner gave complaint before the second respondent on 20.01.2024, for which, CSR No.54 of 2024, dated 24.01.2024 came to be issued; that the respondents 3 to 5 had illegally trespassed into the revision petitioner's fields on 26.01.2024 around 11.00 hours and started to harvest the paddy; that the petitioner coming to know about the same went to the spot and questioned them; that the respondents 3 to 5 had abused in filthy language and threatened to kill her by showing weapons like Aruval, Rod and Spade; that the respondents have stolen the harvest and transported the same through their tractor; that the petitioner gave another complaint before the second respondent on 26.01.2024, but they refused to receive the same; that the petitioner has then sent the complaint through registered post on 05.02.2025 and since there was no action, she was constrained to file a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, for registration of the case and for investigation.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate taking the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on file in Crl.M.P.No.1447 of 2024 and upon perusing the petition, petitioner's affidavit and on hearing the petitioner's side, has passed the impugned order, dated 16.08.2024, by holding that the dispute is of civil in nature, dismissed the petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has specifically averred in her complaint that the respondents 3 to 5 had illegally trespassed into the petitioner's husband land and harvested the paddy, which came to be cultivated by the petitioner and that when the same was questioned, they have abused the petitioner in filthy language and caused criminal intimidation. The petitioner in her petition has stated that since there was no action on the part of the second respondent, subsequent to the registration of CSR No. 54 of 2024, she sent a petition under RTI Act to the District Superintendent of Police, Aranthangi, seeking information about the action taken; that the petitioner received a response stating that she was called for enquiry on 30.01.2024, but she did not appear and that enquiry is pending; that the petitioner did not receive any notice from the second respondent police and that since there was no progress, she sent a representation to the first respondent.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), in the complaint sent to the second respondent on 20.01.2024, the petitioner has specifically stated that the third respondent is none other than the brother of her husband, the fourth respondent is the brother-in-law of the third respondent and that they have threatened that they would harvest the cultivation and stating so, she has sought for police protection.
6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., has nowhere whispered about the relationship of the respondents with the petitioner's husband, but referred as if they are third party strangers.
7. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), since both the parties are cl
