T.Shanthi v. N.Sambantham

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN T.Shanthi W/o.Tamilselvan, Proprietor, M/s.SKV Metal Roofings, Cuddalore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. N.Sambantham S/o.Nandhagopal,

2. S.Sumathi W/o.N.Sambantham, 605 109.

3. S.Bhavani W/o.K.Sankaranarayanan,

4. Sankaranarayanan S/o.Not known,

5. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.

7. The Inspector of Police, Vanur Police station, Vanur, Villupuram District - 605 109.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,

Vanur in C.M.P.No.211 of 2025, whereby the petition filed u/s.175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was dismissed as civil in nature and investigate the matter, or alternatively, remand the case for fresh consideration. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Anandan for M/S.Majestic Law firm For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for RR5 to 7

ORDER

The Revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application filed under Section 175(3) of BNSS, for a direction to the respondent to register a FIR on the basis of the petitioner's complaint. 2.The gist of the petitioner's case is that she is a proprietor of a concern called SKM Metal roofings, which had entered into a written agreement with the accused persons for construction of a convention center measuring an extent of 29900 sq.ft. for a total cost of Rs.3 crores and 50 lakhs; that thereafter, another agreement was entered into between the parties for construction of an additional extent of 12,000 sq.ft for a cost of Rs.1 Crore 50 lakhs; and that the accused persons had paid only a sum of Rs.1 crore for the convention center and Rs.1 Crore 50 lakhs for the additional extent of 12,000 sq.ft. and a sum of Rs.59,00,000/- in addition and failed to pay the balance amount.

3.The petitioner filed a complaint before the police, in which, originally a CSR was registered and was closed on the ground 'civil in nature'. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate seeking registration of FIR.

4.The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that the complaint discloses only a monetary dispute and no offence of cheating is made out.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner however, would submit that besides the monetary dispute, the complainant has also alleged that possession was forcibly taken from the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6.However, it is seen that there is no averment in the complaint as to the the accused persons taking possession of the property from the petitioner forcibly. The complaint only discloses a monetary dispute between a contractor and a land owner. The learned Magistrate therefore, considered the above facts and dismissed the petition. There is absolutely no infirmity in the said order.

7.Accordingly, the Revision is dismissed.

12-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order TSG To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.

3. The Inspector of Police, Vanur Police station, Vanur, Villupuram District - 605 109.

4. The Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

TSG 12-02-2026