IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and Crl.M.P.No.22021 of 2025 and Crl.RC No. 25 of 2026 and Crl.MP.No.120 of 2026 Crl.RC No. 2480 of 2025

1.Sivakumar

2.V.S.Thirunavukkarasu ..Petitioner(s)

Vs K.R.Rajendran ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: This criminal revision case is filed under Section 401 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1534 of 2025 in C.C.No.129 of 2013 dated 13.10.2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Panruti and consequently allow the same.

Crl.RC No. 25 of 2026 V.S.Thirunavukkarasu ..Petitioner(s)

Vs K.R.Rajendran ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: This criminal revision case is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1542 of 2025 in C.C.No.142 of 2013 dated 13.11.2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Panruti and consequently allow the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Saravanan in both Crl.Rcs Mr.D.Baskar For Respondent(s):

in both Crl.RCs

COMMON ORDER

The present criminal revision petitions have been filed against the dismissal of the discharge applications filed by the petitioners vide orders dated 13.10.2025 and 13.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1534 and 1542 of 2025 in C.C.Nos.129 and 142 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panruti.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the Materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that while reading the complaints, there are no materials made out against the accused. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Panruti without considering the same dismissed the discharge applications.

4. The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and would contend that the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the applications on the ground that there are sufficient materials warranting continuation of proceedings against the petitioners.

5. From a perusal of the records, it appears that initially complaints were filed before the Court seeking a direction to forward the same to the police for investigation. However, the police found that no case was made out. Pursuant thereto, the complainant herein invoked Section 200 Cr.P.C. and filed a private complaint. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence and the averments made in the complaints, took cognizance of the case and only thereafter, the present discharge petitions came to be filed.

6. According to Section 245 Cr.P.C., discharge can be ordered only when, upon consideration of the entire materials available before the Court and the complaint, no case is made out against the accused. In the present cases, the learned Magistrate has recorded that there are material allegations against the petitioners which, prima facie, disclose the commission of the offences.

7. No doubt, the petitioners have raised several defences. However, it would be premature for the learned Magistrate to consider all such defences at the stage of deciding the discharge petitions, as the learned Magistrate cannot conduct a roving enquiry at that stage. Apart from that, the contours of the revisional jurisdiction are very limited and unless there is a palpable error, the plausible and reasonable finding reached by the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate, after considering the averments in the complaints in their entirety, has rightly concluded that there are sufficient materials against the accused and consequently dismissed the discharge petitions.

9. Accordingly, these criminal revision petitions stand dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

11-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No rap To The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I Panruti.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap and Crl.RC No. 25 of 2026

11-03-2026