Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
N.Gandhimathi – Appellant
Versus
The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition | Crl.MP.No.19763 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR.N.Vijaya Basker FOR M/S.Law Vision
For the Respondents:MR.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
The Court determined that the complaint primarily concerned a civil dispute, not cognizable offences warranting FIR registration.
Headnote:The present Revision is against the dismissal of a petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking FIR registration due to alleged cognizable offences by the proposed accused. The Court found that the complaint primarily discloses a civil dispute, thus upholding the dismissal of the Magistrate without interference. The Court concluded that there was no basis for the petitioner's request for an FIR, ultimately dismissing the criminal revision case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court found no grounds to interfere. (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. complaint relates to civil dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN N.Gandhimathi W/o.P.Natarajan, No.44, Pushpavathi Amman Street, West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No.19763 of 2024 by the XXIII - Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 21.02.2025.
For Petitioner(s): MR.N.Vijaya Basker FOR M/S.Law Vision For Respondent(s): MR.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The present Revision challenges the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the police to register an F.I.R on the complaint given by the petitioner.
2. The gist of the complaint is that the proposed accused had entered into the property of the petitioner along with henchmen and claimed title by using forged documents and threatened her with dire consequences.
3. Since the complaint given by the petitioner was not registered by the police, the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate, seeking a direction to register an F.I.R. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 21.02.2025, dismissed the said petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint discloses cognizable offences, inasmuch as the proposed accused had abused and attacked the petitioner and also threatened her with dire consequences and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have directed the registration of an F.I.R.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that during the enquiry conducted by the police, it was revealed that there was a lease agreement between the petitioner and the proposed accused. In the complaint given by the petitioner, she had made an endorsement stating that she would pursue her remedy before the Court and hence, the complaint was closed.
6. It is also seen that there was a Civil Suit pending in O.S.No.24 of 2024 between the parties. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said civil suit was dismissed for default.
7. In any case, this Court is of the view that the complaint predominantly discloses only a civil dispute between landlord and a tenant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
8. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
