SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J
P.Nallammal – Appellant
Versus
V.Bose – Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.971 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, Mrs.M.Aasha

Cloaking civil disputes with a criminal nature for expedience is an abuse of process law.

Headnote:The Criminal Revision Petition was filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to challenge the dismissal of a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner alleged unlawful assembly and threats from the respondents, which the Magistrate deemed a civil matter, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court cautioned against criminalizing civil disputes, emphasizing proper procedure under Cr.P.C. The petitioner could seek civil remedy despite the dismissal of the criminal petition. The court upheld the Magistrate's dismissal as justified, highlighting an absence of urgency in police complaint filings.

Table of Content
1. facts of alleged threats and property dispute. (Para 2 , 8 , 10 , 12)
2. court's observation on the nature of the dispute. (Para 3 , 14 , 16)
3. arguments on dismissal related to cognizable offences. (Para 4 , 11)
4. ratio on fir registration responsibilities. (Para 21)
5. final ruling on the revision's merits. (Para 22)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5028 of 2023, dated 25.06.2024 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure .

2. The case of the petitioner/defacto complainant is that the respondents 1 to 3 are her own brothers and the fourth respondent is the son of the second respondent; that the petitioner's younger son Rajkumar married the second respondent's daughter Chandra; that the said Rajkumar filed a divorce petition against the said Chandra in H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2023 and the same is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Melur; that the said Chandra filed DVC case against the petitioner's family in D.V.C.No.1 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur; that the petitioner has purchased lands at Kallampatti Village, Melur Taluk vide registered sale deed; that on 02.03.2023 at about 08.00 am, the petitioner visited her lands and directed her son Rajkumar to bring a mechanic to repair the motor pump set ; that the respondents/accused had assembled unlawfully, trespassed into the petitioner's land, abused the petitioner in filthy language, threatened her to transfer all her property in the name of her daughter-in-law Chandra or else they would not allow the petitioner and her son to enter into the property; that when the petitioner had questioned their claim of transferring the property into the said Chandra, they had threatened and directed the petitioner to transfer the property and to withdraw the case or else they would face dire consequences; that the petitioner had dialed 100, seeking the help of police and also sent a complaint through online, for which, the petitioner received a SMS (message) from the police stating that 'necessary action sent'; that the petitioner has then lodged a police complaint on 03.03.2023 before the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, for which CSR came to be received; that since there was no action, the petitioner was forced to send a complaint to the District Superintendent of Police, Madurai through registered post, dated 03.03.2023 and the same was received on 06.03.2023 and that since there was no action at all, the petitioner was constrained to file the above petition under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., for registration of FIR and for investigation.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate, taking the petition filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on file in Cr.M.P.No.5028 of 2023 and upon perusing the petition, affidavit and on hearing the petitioner's side, has passed the impugned order, dated 25.06.2024 by holding that the dispute is of civil in nature, dismissed the petition. Challenging the dismissal order, the present Criminal Revision came to be filed.

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 do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top