P.Leelapappa v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2025 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN P.Leelapappa ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Office of the Deputy Commissioner Maduravayal, Chennai - 600 077
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Office of the Assistant Commissioner Maduravayal, Chennai - 600 077
3. The Inspector of Police R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station Virugambakkam, Chennai - 600 077 ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 read with 442 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.19764 of 2024 on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 15 and set aside its order dated 10.12.2024.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Pradeesh.K For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.19764 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's second son namely Rajesh Pandian by using the petitioner's husband's age factor and the disability of the petitioner's first son, taken the Hardware Shop which was started by her husband and first son. Further, by creating fabricated documents for the Innova Car bearing Registration No.TN10AC006 which belongs to the petitioner's husband and by putting the petitioner's husband's signature in the TO Form, change its ownership rights. When the same was questioned, the said Rajesh Pandian scolded and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Hence, the petitioner sent complaints to the 3 rd respondent police and also to the 2/6
Deputy Commissioner of Police/1 st respondent on 19.04.2024. However, no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.19764 of 2024 before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, under Section 175 (3) of B.N.S.S. seeking direction to register FIR and to investigate the matter. The said petition was dismissed by order dated 10.12.2024 on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record
4. The contention of the petitioner is that her husband had not given any consent and he had not put any signature to transfer the ownership of the Car and that her husband's signature has been forged.
5. Whether the signature is forged or not, that has to be decided by the civil Court. The Investigating Agency is nothing to do with the same. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Magistrate.
3/6
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.
11.03.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ksa-2 4/6
To
1. The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Office of the Deputy Commissioner Maduravayal, Chennai - 600 077
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Office of the Assistant Commissioner Maduravayal, Chennai - 600 077
4. The Inspector of Police R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station Virugambakkam, Chennai - 600 077
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras 5/6
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
Ksa-2 11.03.2025 6/6