BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 26.02.2025 Pronounced on : 14.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Crl.R.C.(MD)No.46 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.598 of 2025

1.Karthick

2.Mariyaseena

3.Maria Johnson ... Petitioners Vs.

1.Jaikumar Christhurajan 2.The Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichi Police Station, Kanniyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to set aside the judgment dated 20.12.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No. 1941 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel by allowing the above criminal revision petition.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Deenadayalan for Mr.M.Viji For R1 : Mr.Ka.Ramakrishnan For R2 : Mrs.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1941 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024 under Section 175(3) BNSS on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

2. The first respondent/complainant has filed a petition under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking direction to the Inspector of Police, Vellichanthai Police Station to register a case and for investigation. The learned Judicial Magistrate, taking into the petition filed under Section 175(3) BNSS on file in Crl.M.P.No.1941 of 2024 and upon perusing the petition and the first respondent's affidavit and on hearing the first respondent's side, has passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 directing the second respondent police to proceed in accordance with the Chapter XIII of BNSS 2023 and file the final report within the time prescribed by the law. To put it in other way, the learned Magistrate has directed the second respondent police to register a case, to proceed with the investigation and file a final report within the time prescribed by the law. Challenging the above order, the proposed accused have preferred the present revision.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would raise the maintainability issue that the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or 175(3) BNSS directing registration of the case cannot be challenged and relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HDFC Securities Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2016 (4) Crimes 395 (SC), “24.It appears to us that the appellants approached the High Court even before the stage of issuance of process. In particular, the appellants challenged the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants after summarizing their arguments in the matter have emphasized also in the context of the fundamental rights of the appellants under the Constitution, that the order impugned has caused grave inequities to the appellants. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the order is illegal and is an abuse of the process of law. However, it appears to us that this order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation. We must keep in our mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Therefore, in our opinion, at this stage the High Court has correctly assessed the facts and the law in this situation and held that filing of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at this stage are nothing but premature. Further, in our opinion, the High Court correctly came to the conclusion that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. In these circumstances, we do not find that there is any flaw in the impugned order or any illegality has been committed by the High Court in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. Accordingly, we affirm the order so passed b