Dismissed

Aravindkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Sept 2023CRL RC/1539/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge to the V Metropolitan Magistrate's order. The bench held that the dispute involving unpaid lease amounts and alleged ownership issues between the parties was purely civil in nature and lacked criminal color, thus refusing to interfere with the lower court's dismissal of the private complaint.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed and the orders dated 02.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.16919/2023 were confirmed.

Aravindkumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶7

Aravindkumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, K-3, Ammjikarai Police Station, Chennai District. … Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the orders dated 02.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.16919/2023 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja, GA (Crl. Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Challenge in this criminal revision case is made to the orders

¶15

dated 02.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.16919/2023 on the file of the learned V

¶16

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶20

2.The revision petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against one Padmanabhan before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.16919/2023 seeking to forward his complaint to the Inspector of Police, K-3,Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision is filed.

¶21

3. The case of the complainant is that he took a car namely Maruthi Suzuki Swift Desire Model 2016 bearing Registration No. TN10-AW-9886 on lease from one Padmanabhan for a period of one year and paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards lease and a sum of Rs.15,000/towards brokerage. According to the complainant, he used to park the car in front of his home and on 25.12.2022, he found the car missing and when he contacted the lessor Padmanabhan, he informed him that the vehicle was actually owned by one Nagarajan and that the said Nagarajan Page 2 of 8

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶24

had taken the car by using his spare key. Therefore, the revision petitioner lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, K-3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai and the same was registered as C.S.R.No.779/2022. Since no action was initiated by the police he filed a private complaint as stated above.

¶25

4. Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar, learned counsel for the

¶26

revision petitioner would contend that Padmanabhan did not inform the revision petitioner about the dispute with regard to the ownership of the car between him and the lessor Nagarajan and thus cheated the revision petitioner by leasing the car.

¶27

5. Mr.R.Vinothraja, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶28

would contend that based on the complaint given by the revision petitioner, C.S.R.No.779/2022 of K-3,Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai was registered and enquiry was conducted. According to him, Nagarajan is the original owner of the car and he had mortgaged the car with Padmanabhan who in turn leased out the same to the revision

¶29

Page 3 of 8

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶32

petitioner. His further contention is that there is no criminal intention on

¶33

the part of the said Nagarajan and the dispute is based on a contract between the parties.

¶34

6. The learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai,

¶35

after considering the rival submissions made by both the parties, had

¶36

observed thus :

¶37

"4.The petitioner further stated that he had lodged a complaint before the respondent dated 26.11.2022 and the same was registered as C.S.R.No.779/2022 but after registering the case none of the investigation was done by the respondent. He had sent a appeal to the higher official but no steps were taken by the respondent.

¶38

5.The petitioner therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to register the First Information Report and based on the C.S.R. No.779/2022 dated 26.11.2022 against the accused persons under Section 294(b), 420, 506(i) IPC.

¶39

6.On perusal of the petition and records filed

¶40

Page 4 of 8

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶43

along with the petition, it is revealed that the petitioner want to take a car under lease for his marriage thereby he had seen the advertisement of one Mr.Padmanabhan in the face book and contacted him and took the vehicle of Maruthi Suzuki Swift Desire Model 2016 bearing Registration No.TN 10 AW 9886 by paying the lease amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and brokerage amount of Rs.15,000/- to him.

¶44

7.After leased the car he had used the same without any issues. On 25.12.2022 he has parked the car in front of the home and on the very same day at about 2.30 hrs. the car found missing. He immediately contacted the said Mr.Padmanabhan and informed him and questioned about the same he told that the owner of the vehicle one Mr.Nagarajan has took the car by used the spare key and he had given alternative car for use.

¶45

8.Mr.Padmanabhan didn't retuned the ease amount after expiry of the lease period. The petitioner made several request to the said Padmanabhan and he assured him to return the money hence, the petitioner has handed over the leased car to him."

¶46

Page 5 of 8

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶49

7.The only grievance of the revision petitioner is that the proposed accused Padmanabhan did not return the lease amount after the expiry of the lease period, though the revision petitioner requested him to repay on several occasions. In such circumstances, the revision petitioner can very well approach a civil court for getting back his money from Padmanabhan, if so advised, and no criminal colour can be given to a civil dispute. The orders passed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is perfectly in order and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same.

¶50

8.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. The orders

¶51

dated 02.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.16919/2023 on the file of the learned V

¶52

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is confirmed.

¶53

12.09.2023

¶54

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl

¶55

Page 6 of 8

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶58

¶59

1.The Inspector of Police, K-3, Ammjikarai Police Station, Chennai District.

¶60

2.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

¶61

Page 7 of 8

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶64

R. HEMALATHA, J. mtl

¶65

Crl.R.C.No.1539 of 2023

¶66

12.09.2023

¶67

Page 8 of 8

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Aravindkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aravindkumar v. the Inspector of Police

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

Prabhu @ Selvaprabhu Vs State Represented

P.Vetriselvan Vs State Rep by

S.Sunitha Vs B.Mukundan

Abuthageer Vs N.Sundaramurthy

P.Velusamy Vs T.a.P.Sureshkumar

M/S.Ventura Engineers ( India) Pvt.Ltd Vs M/S.Wilson Power and Distribution Technologies Private Ltd.