Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4965
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
G. Balamurugesan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.48 of 2025
Decided On : 21-02-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. T. Aswin Raja Simman
For the Respondents:Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
Courts discourage converting civil disputes into criminal cases, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures before invoking criminal jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Dismissal of petition - Petition dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate as the dispute was of a civil nature, and petitioner failed to comply with mandatory requirements for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 156(3). (Paras 3, 9, 11)
(B) Civil vs. Criminal - Courts have deprecated the practice of converting civil disputes into criminal cases, stressing that criminal proceedings should not be a shortcut for civil remedies. (Paras 4, 5)
(C) Required Procedure - Compliance with subsections (1) & (3) of Section 154 necessary before petitioning under Section 156(3). (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner asserted that individuals illegally encroached and constructed a marriage hall on temple lands, despite repeated complaints to authorities.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not follow proper procedural steps before filing under Section 156(3).
Issues: The key issue was whether the matter presented had a criminal nature or was purely civil, and if proper procedure was followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Judicial Magistrate's ruling, affirming that civil disputes should not be cloaked in criminal proceedings and that the petitioner had not met the necessary procedural requirements.
Result: Criminal Revision case dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case involving land encroachment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the magistrate dismissed the petition as civil in nature. (Para 3) |
| 3. supreme court disapproval of civil disputes in criminal law. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observation on classification of disputes and procedural compliance. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 5. requirement for filing under section 156(3) of crpc. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. conclusion that the petition is lacking merit. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.371 of 2024, dated 02.12.2024, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the Madavar Valagam Arulmigu Vaidhiyanatha Swamy Thirukovil at Padikkasu Vaithanpatti, Srivilliputhur Taluk is owning dry lands in S.No.149/6 measuring 36 hectares and is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department ; that Aadhi Narayanaswamy Temple, in which the petitioner is worshipping, is situated in the said lands; that the respondents 2 to 11, without getting any permission from the HR & CE Department or from Panchayat Union Office of the Srivilliputhur, have colluded together and encroached the said temple lands and are constructing Marriage Hall by cutting trees and removal of the same from the said lands; that the petitioner has lodged a complaint with the 12th respondent/Executive Officer of the said Temple, but he has failed to take any action; that the petitioner has then sent complaints to the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department, District Collector, Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District and to the Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station; that the respondents 1 to 12, even after the above complaints, have again cut the trees and removed the same; that when the petitioner has visited the temple at about 08.00 am on 22.12.2023, for worshipping and on seeing the cutting of trees, he made an enquiry with the people, who were cutting the trees, but they have abused him in filthy language and caused criminal intimidation and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for registration of FIR and for investigation.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, taking the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., on file in Cr.M.P.No.371 of 2024 and upon perusing the petition, petitioner's affidavit and on hearing the petitioner's side, has passed the impugned order, dated 02.12.2024, by holding that the dispute is of civil in nature, dismissed the petition.
4. Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer the judgment of 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, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 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 :
"
