Madras High CourtCRL RC/703/2025dismissed

S.Sudhakar v. The Commissioner Of Police

2025-06-10Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 10.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN S.Sudhakar .....

Appellant Vs

1. Commissioner of Police, Karapakkam, Elcot Sez, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

2. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, GST Road, Kilambakkam Police Station, Urapakkam, Chennai - 603 210.

3. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Tambaram, Chennai.

4. John Kennedy

5. Asir Devadoss Navamani

6. Saminathan

7. Anbarasan

8. Sam Daniel .....

Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS Act to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tambaram in CMP No.1507 of 2024 dated 04.12.2024 to set aside the same and consequently direct the third respondent to register the FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 23.07.2024 within stipulated time.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Gopinath Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This revision has been preferred as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1507/2024 dated 04.12.2024 thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner seeking for direction under Section 175(3) of BNSS.

2. On perusal of the complaint lodged by the petitioner revealed that the petitioner is an executive member of Seventh Day Adventist Church. The respondents 4 to 8 are the followers of the Church and they did not adhere to the spiritual obligation in worship practices. They have forwarded defamatory allegations in Facebook, WhatsApp and in other social medias with regards to Church and tried to incite violence and rest. They have also harassed the petitioner for the past two years and tried to assault the Administrator, Pastors and Women of the Church to tarnish reputation.

3. However, in the said complaint, the petitioner did not even whisper on what day the occurrence has happened and what is the overt act as against the

respondents 4 to 8. The petitioner had made bald and vague allegations against the respondents 4 to 8. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a suit for damages for the defamatory statements made against the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not file any complaint for defamation. Therefore, no harmful offence has been made out as per the allegations in the complaint and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 10.06.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order bkn To

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tambaram

2. The Commissioner of Police, Karapakkam, Elcot Sez, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

bkn 3.The Inspector of Police, GST Road, Kilambakkam Police Station, Urapakkam, Chennai - 603 210.

4. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Tambaram, Chennai.

5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

10.06.2025