Arivazhagan v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 17.07.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Arivazhagan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police Mangadu Police Station, Chennai

2. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissionerate, Chennai

...Respondents

Prayer:

Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS Act to set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 30.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.829 of 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to register the complaint dated 05.01.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Balamanikandan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) Page 1 / 4

O R D E R

This Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.829 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur dated 30.06.2025 thereby dismissed the petition filed for direction under Section 175 (3) of BNSS Act, 2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record carefully.

3.On a perusal of the entire case materials placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner had lodged a complaint alleging that the counter party received 5 crores on the pretext that the petitioner will be inducted as a partner and share profits, however, the counter party failed to induct the petitioner as a partner and refused to return the money. Further, the petitioner was threatened with dire consequences to withdraw the complaint and the counter party also entered the house premises of the petitioner and damaged the window and other house hold articles and he has also produced photographs to that effect. The said complaint was closed as no prima facie case has been made out for registration of FIR, therefore, the petitioner filed a petition for Section 175 (3) and the same was also Page 2 / 4

dismissed on the ground that the petitioner cheated several persons by receiving huge amount on the pretext of obtaining job, further, there is absolutely no proof to show that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.5 crores of cash to the counter party, therefore, no prima facie case has been made out to register the FIR, hence the trial court rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the present Revision is dismissed. 17.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssd To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur

2. The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras Page 3 / 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

ssd 17.07.2025 Page 4 / 4