M.Natarajan v. Marimuthu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI M.Natarajan ... Petitioner -vs1.Marimuthu 2.Jeya 3.Ramesh 4.State Through:

The Inspector of Police, Veeracholam Police Station, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

5.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Review Case filed under 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 22.08.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.451 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchuli and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondent to register the First Information Report and investigate the same based on the complaint dated 02.04.2024 and 18.04.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mariappan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Ms.Subhiksha For Mr.B.Anandan For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.)

ORDER

Challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchuli, in Crl.M.P.No.451 of 2023 dated 22.08.2024, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

2.The claim of the petitioner is that on 01.04.2024, at about 07.30 p.m., the respondents 1 to 3 had broken the gate of his house and had trespassed therein and indulged in intimidating and threatened the petitioner with dare results. Immediately, the petitioner had lodged a complaint. However only on 05.04.2024, the fourth respondent police has issued a CSR. However, no FIR was registered by the fourth respondent police. Hence, the petitioner had filed the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the learned Trial Court, seeking to direct the fourth respondent Police to register FIR as against the respondents 1 to 3. Pending the said petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate required the fourth respondent police about the status of the petitioner's complaint dated 01.04.2024. For which, the fourth respondent police had responded by submitting a report dated 20.06.2024, in which, it was reported that the petitioner has given a complaint on 05.04.2024 at 07.00 p.m., and on the basis of which, the Superintendent of Police had visited the spot and

conducted an enquiry and found out that no such incident on the particular day. Further it was reported that there existed an enmity between the petitioner and the third respondent with regard to a civil dispute. As the result of which, the petitioner is continuously habitual in giving false complaint against the respondents 1 to 3. 3.That apart, it was also informed that the petitioner's son one Kalyanasundaram had lodged a complaint against the son of the first respondent, before the Chief Minister cell, about his conduct of indulging in wild animal business illegally. In this regard, the third respondent, who is the driver of the first respondent's son, had informed the petitioner to restrict his son from making complaints as against them.

As such, the enmity was continuously prevailing between the petitioner and the respondents and only to vent his grudge, the petitioner has lodged a false complaint and filed a report in this regard. Recording the same, the complaint lodged by the petitioner for which, CSR was issued on 05.04.2024 was closed, warning both the parties strictly not to indulge any dispute further. The learned Trial Court had perused the said report and had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is giving criminal color to a civil dispute and on that ground, dismissed the Revision Case.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though he had lodged a complaint as early as on the date of incident itself on 01.04.2024, the fourth respondent police had not conducted proper investigation and remained a mute spectator of what had happened between the petitioner and the respondents. Thereafter, only on 05.04.2024, after the petitioner's repeated request, CSR was issued by the fourth respondent Police. Even thereafter, since no action was taken against the respondents 1 to 3, he made an application before the fifth respondent Superintendent of Police on 18.04.2024. Even thereafter no action was taken. The petitioner was constrained to file the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, during May 2024 and only at the instance of the learned Trial Court, the fourth respondent Police in the guise of having made a spot visit on 05.04.2024, had filed a report. Had the respondent police properly conducted an enquiry, immediately on the receipt of the complaint on 01.04.2024, proper information would have been given by the neighbors and the fourth respondent police would have been successful in the investigation. Having not done so, the fourth respondent Police without proper investigation, has filed an evasive closure report before the learned Judicial Magistrate and pressed for allowing Criminal Revision Case. 5.

counsel for the petitioner is absolutely incorrect and relying upon para no. 4 of the impugned order, she pointed out that the petitioner was duly summoned by the fourth respondent police in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police of Thiruchuli and an enquiry was also conducted in which the petitioner himself had confirmed that no such incident had happened on 01.04.2024 and that only a civil dispute is prevailing between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 and only on the basis of the said enquiry, the fourth respondent police has filed a closure report. She categorically contended that it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court.

6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.) appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 further submitted that it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order, since the closure report was filed only on the basis of facts, which were derived out of the investigation made by the fourth respondent police.

7.Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

8.As pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, it is needless to state that the petitioner had made an attempt by lodging a criminal complaint before the fourth respondent police to vent his pent up

enmity, as a civil dispute has been prevailing between him and the respondents. I do not find any demerit in the order passed by the learned Trial Court and there is no necessary to interfere with the same. 9.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.07.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchuli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Veeracholam Police Station, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J.

Mrn 02.07.2025