V.Lenin v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN V.Lenin S/o. Veeraragavan, No.345, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Chennai.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police V4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai.

..Respondent(s) Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS, praying set aside the order dated 03.09.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.11659 of 2025 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai 08 and pleased to direct the Inspector of Police to register the complaint dated 26.04.2025.

For Petitioner(s):

M/S.M.MANOJKUMAR For Respondent(s):

MR.R.VINOTHRAJA GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRIMINAL SIDE)

ORDER

The present Revision challenges the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 175(3) BNSS., seeking a direction to the police to register an F.I.R on the complaint given by the petitioner.

2. The gist of the petitioner's complaint is that the proposed accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- in the year 2018; that he repaid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the year 2023; that on 24.04.2025, when the petitioner demanded the return of money, the proposed accused called the petitioner and abused him in filthy language and threatened him of dire consequences and thus committed the cognizable offences.

3. Since the complaint given by the petitioner was not registered by the police, the petitioner filed an application under Section 175(3) BNSS, before the learned Magistrate, seeking a direction to register an F.I.R. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, dismissed the said petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that besides committing the offence of cheating, the proposed accused had committed the

offence of criminal intimidation and that therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have directed the registration of an F.I.R.

5. On a perusal of the complaint filed by the petitioner and the impugned order, this Court finds that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the loan paid to the proposed accused has not been repaid. As regards the incident on 24.04.2025, the petitioner himself had withdrawn the said complaint as could be seen from the report of the police. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order holding that no cognizable offence is made out.

6. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. 27-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order ANU To The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police V4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai.

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

ANU 27-02-2026