Allowed

C.Dayalan v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC3 Aug 2021CRL RC/817/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the Madras High Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging an order directing registration of an FIR in a property dispute. The court held that overlap of plots is a civil matter for the Civil Court, not a criminal offence, and set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, in CMP.No.3473 of 2015, directing registration of FIR, is set aside. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the connected Mis

C.Dayalan Vs the State Rep. by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.08.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.817 of 2015

and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

C.Dayalan

...Revision Petitioner/Respondent

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, JJ Nagar Police Station,

¶12

Ambattur Industrial Estate Road, Anna Nagar, J Jayalalitha Nagar,

¶13

Mogappair East, Chennai – 600040.

¶14

2.V.S.Muthupandian ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶15

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, in CMP.No.3473 of 2015.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vijay For R2 : Mr.K.N.Nataraj For R1 : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The second respondent herein has preferred a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C in CMP.No.3473 of 2015. Additional typed set of papers was filed and the learned Magistrate has referred the matter to the concerned Police Station for registration of FIR and has directed to file a final report.

¶19

2.The case of the revision petitioner herein/respondent is that he had purchased the property in respect of Plot No.10 in Survey No.425, Golden George Nagar, Mogappair Village, Ambattur Taluk and alleged that one Muthupandian/defacto compliainant has purchased the property in plot No.110, comprised in Survey No. 426 of very same village.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

3.Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

¶22

4.On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the revision

¶23

petitioner has purchased the property by sale deed, so also defacto complainant has purchased the property by sale deed, survey number is totally different viz., 425 and 426, besides, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978, the lands purchased by the defacto complainant comprised in Survey No.426 has been acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government, in the year 1995 itself.

¶24

5.This Court finds that the dispute with regard to

¶25

overlapping of the plots is to be worked out before the Civil Court; there is no criminal offence committed for taking cognizance; the matter is of Civil in nature and hence, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, in CMP.No.3473 if 2015, dated 27.07.2015, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, to register FIR is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶26

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed.

¶27

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

s/d-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶30

True Copy

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

dua To

¶33

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

¶34

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶35

JJ Nagar Police Station, Ambattur Industrial Estate Road, Anna Nagar, J Jayalalitha Nagar, Mogappair East, Chennai – 600040.

¶36

3.The Public Prosecutor,

¶37

High Court, Madras.

¶38

+1 CC to Mr.B.Vijay, Advocate sr 38515.

¶39

Crl.R.C.No.817 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶40

SR(CO) SP(25/08/2021)

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.Dayalan v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Dayalan v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Kalaiselvi Vs D.Suresh

K.P.Mani Vs State Rep. by

K.Jalandararaju Vs R.Chandran

Regsalin Vs N.Nagarajan

Dr.R.Solomon, M/Aged 78 Yrs Vs the Superintendent of Police

Gau Raksha Dal - Tamil Nadu Vs the State of Tamil Nadu