Court ruled that mandatory procedures for police investigation under Section 175(3) of BNSS require prior police officer submissions, failing which judicial orders are invalid.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.275 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, thereby seeking a direction to direct the 2^nd respondent under section 175(3) of BNSS to investigate the case.

2. The 1^st respondent lodged a complaint alleging that her father intended to purchase a property of 11 cents comprised in Survey Nos.31/15, 31/17B, 31/29 and 31/28C, in Devaneri Village, Hamlet of old No.162, New No.156, Mahabalipuram Village, Thirukazhukundaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, and the said purchase was made via a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2001, vide document No.302/2001. Subsequently, the petitioner and her husband moved to U.S.A., and her father also moved to Singapore. After some years, upon returning to Chennai, she visited the subject property for cleaning. While so, the petitioners herein who are also named as Jayasudha W/o. K.V.Kathiravan, allegedly forged documents and registered the property in her husband's favour through a settlement deed dated 09.06.2023. Her husband later mortgaged the said property and obtained a loan. A complaint was immediately lodged, and the 3^rd respondent issued a CSR. However, no action was taken, leading the 1^st respondent to file a petition under section 175(3) of BNSS .

3. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 31.01.2025, in Crl.M.P.No.275 of 2025, directed the 3^rd respondent to investigate the case.

4. In pursuant to the direction, the 3^rd respondent registered FIR in Crime No.4 of 2025 for the offences under sections, 468, 471,419 and 420 of IPC as against the petitioners and others including the Inspector of Police, who issued a non-traceable certificate on the complaint lodged by the 1^st respondent herein and the Sub Registrar who registered the settlement deed in favour of the 2^nd petitioner. Now the investigation is pending in Crime No.4 of 2025. The 1^st and 2^nd accused filed this revision challenging the order passed under section 175 (3) of BNSS .

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after the FIR was registered, the subject property was reconveyed in favour of the 1^st respondent herein. Further, the 1^st respondent failed to comply the provision under section 175(3) of BNSS , as she directly filed a petition under this section before the learned Magistrate immediately after receiving the CSR for her complaint. Further the learned Magistrate failed to comply the provisions under section 175(4) of and mechanically directed the 3^rd respondent to investigate the complaint.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that the petitioners are being an accused have no locus to challenge the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.275 of 2025. Since the 3^rd respondent has now registered FIR in Crime No.4 of 2025 as directed by the learned Magistrate, the present revision has become infructuous. If at all there are any grievances over registration of the FIR, the petitioners ought to have challenged the FIR in the manner known to law. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate followed the procedures as contemplated under section 175 (3) and (4) of the Act and directed the 3^rd respondent to investigate the complaint. The 1^st respondent also duly complied with the provisions under section 175(3) of BNSS ; after lodging a complaint before the Commissioner of Police and the same was forwarded to Deputy Commissioner of Police and subsequently reached the 3^rd respondent herein. Although the 1^st respondent was iss