T.Gunaseelan v. The Commissioner Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN T.Gunaseelan ... Appellant Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Zone, Tambaram, Chennai.
2.Assistant Commissioner of Police, No.3, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Jothi Nagar, Thuraipakkam, Tamil Nadu - 600 097.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thuraipakkam Police Station (Crime), Near Jain College, Subbarayan Nagar, Thuraipakkam, Tamil Nadu - 600 097.
4.Ravindra Raja ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of B.N.S.S., pleased to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur, in Crl.M.P.No.2487 of 2024 and set aside the same and direct the respondent police to register an F.I.R. on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 14.09.2021 and conduct a proper investigation. Page No.1 of 5
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Edwin Yovan Raj For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) [R1 to R3] *****
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2487 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Alandur, thereby dismissing the petition filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to register FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 14.09.2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and also perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the proposed accused Ravindra Raja, 4th respondent herein in order to get a job for his daughter. Inspite of several demands, he has neither arranged for a job nor returned the money. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the respondents 1 and 3, for which, the respondent police issued Page No.2 of 5
C.S.R.No.578 of 2021 and did not take any action. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register FIR on the petitioner's complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Alandur, however, the learned Magistrate dismissed the same on the ground that there was no proof to show that the petitioner had paid Rs.8,00,000/- to the 4th respondent. It is seen from the records that the complaint filed by the petitioner has to be investigated since it is a case of job rocketting and the 4th respondent has committed a very serious offence against the society. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.2487 of 2024 is set aside. The 3rd respondent police is directed to conduct enquiry on the complaint given by the petitioner and if any prima facie case is made out against the 4th respondent, register the F.I.R against him and proceed with the investigation in the manner known to law.
Page No.3 of 5
5. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
16.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order NCC : Yes / No sp To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur.
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. Page No.4 of 5
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
sp 16.07.2025 Page No.5 of 5