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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 2370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN
D.SAMIDURAI – Appellant
Versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN D.Samidurai Petitioner(s)

Vs The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No.6421/2025, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore, dated 10.11.2025.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Ashokkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This revision challenges the dismissal of the petition filed under Section

175 (3) BNSS seeking registration of FIR on the petitioner’s complaint.

2.The gist of the allegation in the petitioner’s complaint is that the petitioner is in possession of a land for about 70 years; that the proposed accused are trying to disturb his possession by executing documents by claiming title in favour of third parties and that they are liable for the offences of forgery and cheating.

3.The learned Magistrate found that the petitioner had already challenged the patta granted in favour of the proposed accused; that there is a judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.22/1968; that the allegations are civil in nature; and that therefore, the Police have no jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute and dismissed the petition.

4.The petitioner is unable to point out the cognizable offences committed by the proposed accused. The allegations at best disclose that the proposed accused has made a false claim of title. In fact, the petitioner has not chosen to file any civil suit to prove his possession or to declare that the patta granted in favour of the proposed accused is erroneous. The dispute with regard to title or possession cannot be decided by the Police. Hence, the learned Magistrate was right in dismissing the petitioner’s application and this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

5.Accordingly, this revision stands dismissed.

Index:Yes/No 06-01-2026 Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No sli To

1.The Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore.

2.The Superintendent Of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore.

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

sli

06-01-2026

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