BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1915 of 2024

D.Vijitha ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Marthandam,

Kanyakumari District.

2.Viju

3. Yesudoss

4. Asbinvigi ... Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in Cr.MP.No.3393/2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, and set aside the order date 02.08.2023 and the report dated 29.10.2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent and consequently issue a direction to the 1^st respondent herein viz

Inspector of Police, AWPS Marthandam, to register an FIR.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ilayaraja

For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi,

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records relating to Cr.M.P.No.3393 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, and to set aside the order dated 02.08.2023, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, was closed, and to consequently set aside the closure report dated 29.10.2023 submitted by the 1^st respondent police, and to issue appropriate directions in accordance with law. Preface:

2. The power conferred upon a Magistrate under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C., 1973, is neither administrative nor cosmetic. It is a judicial command, issued after application of mind, intended to set the criminal law in motion. Equally, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, exists to ensure that such judicial commands are neither diluted nor rendered nugatory by mechanical orders or executive inaction.

3. The present case raises a significant question touching upon the procedural sanctity of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, the duty of the police to comply with judicial directions, and the statutory right of a complainant to be heard before closure of a complaint.

Case of the Prosecution / Background Facts:

4. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the second respondent. Alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, the petitioner initially approached the police seeking registration of an FIR. As no action was taken by the police, the petitioner invoked her statutory remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., 1973. Even thereafter, no FIR was registered. Left with no alternative, the petitioner approached the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, by filing a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate the cognizable offences disclosed in her complaint.

5. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 10.04.2023, forwarded the complaint to the 1^st respondent police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, for investigation, and specifically directed the police to file a report on or before 14.06.2023. However, without waiting for any report from the police and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 02.08.2023, closed Crl.M.P.No.3393 of 2023 merely stating that investigation had already been ordered earlier.

6. Subsequently, when the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23139 of 2023 seeking compliance of the Magistrate’s order dated 10.04.2023, it was reported by the prosecution that the complaint had been “closed” on 10.11.2023, pursuant to an alleged enquiry. This Court disposed of the said Criminal Original Petition by directing supply of the closure report and granting liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedies in accordance with law. Grounds for quash:

7. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated

02.08.2023 on the following principal grounds:

The learned Magistrate acted mechanically and without application of mind in closing the Section 156(