IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 30.10.2025 Coram:

The Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.R.C.No.2196 of 2025 Mrs.Parimaladevi @ B.Basumathy ...Petitioner Versus

1.The Inspector General of Police, North Zone, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.

Kancheeepuram.

3.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

...Respondents This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS, 2023 praying to set aside the Order in Crl.M.P.No.751 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram and allow the above Criminal Revision.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.V.Sridharan For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Civil Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.751 of 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is an absolute owner of the following properties comprised in (i) Survey No.750/3A measuring an extent of 0.21 Cents;

(ii) Survey No.754 measuring an extent of 1.34 Acres;

(iii) Survey No.1487/3B measuring an extent of 0.09 Cents;

(iv) Survey No.1487/4B2 measuring an extent of 0.84 ½ Cents; and (v) Survey No.1487/5B measuring an extent of 0.01 ½ Cents situated at Old No.105, New No.42, Sriperumbudur Village. During the year 2003, petitioner had executed a Power of Attorney Deed in favour of his brother viz., Govardhan which was registered as Document No.16/IV/2003 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Sriperumbudur.

3. In the year 2003, based on the aforesaid Power of Attorney Deed Document, petitioner’s brother Govardhan had executed a Sale Deed dated 08.10.2004 in favour of his 3rd wife viz., Mrs.Shanthi. By way of said Sale Deed, petitioner’s brother Govardhan had sold the petitioner’s property comprised in Survey No.750/2A measuring an extent of 0.17 Cents in favour of his 3rd wife Mrs.Shanthi. However, the said property does not form part of the Power of Attorney Deed executed by petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner’s brother Govardhan and his 3rd wife Mrs.Shanthi had jointly sold the petitioner’s property comprised in Survey No.750/2A measuring an extent of 0.17 Cents to various purchasers.

4. The petitioner came to know about the aforesaid sale transaction done by her brother Govardhan and Mrs.Shanthi W/o. Govardhan only in the year 2024. Therefore, immediately, petitioner gave a written complaint to 1st respondent Police on 04.11.2024 in this regard. Thereafter, petitioner vide Reminder dated 05.12.2024, requesting the 1st respondent Police to take necessary action against her brother Govardhan and Mrs.Shanthi W/o. Govardhan. Ultimately, this issue went to 3rd respondent Police. However, without conducting any enquiry, 3rd respondent Police decided that the issue is civil in nature and hence, petitioner has to work out her remedy before a Civil Forum. Subsequently, petitioner had filed a petition in C.M.P.No.751 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Kancheepuram praying to direct the respondent Police to register his complaint dated 04.11.2024. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram vide Order dated 30.06.2025, dismissed the petition in C.M.P.No.751 of 2025. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Trial Court has held in its findings that petitioner’s brother Govardhan and his 3rd wife Mrs.Shanthi had done the alleged sale transaction in the year 2004, but, petitioner lodged the complaint only in the year 2024. It is submitted that in criminal law, limitation does not extinguish liability for serious offences involving fraud and misappropriation.

5.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the Overdraft Letter dated 14.03.2025 issued by 3rd respondent Police, it ha