Dismissed

A.Abdulla Basha v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Sept 2023CRL RC/97/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a private complaint regarding a tenancy dispute where the landlord allegedly refused to return an advance amount and threatened the tenant. The High Court held the dispute was civil in nature.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed, and the orders dated 19.10.2022 of XVI MM Saidapet were confirmed.

A.Abdulla Basha Vs Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C. No. 97 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl. R.C. No.97 of 2023

A.Abdulla Basha

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police, J6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041

¶11

Arjunan

¶12

A. Bhuvanesh

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.10.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.16706 of 2022, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi For R1 : Mr. R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 & R3 : Mr. N. Ramesh

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Challenge in this Criminal Revision is made to the orders

¶18

dated 19.10.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.16706 of 2022, on the file of the

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.R.C. No. 97 of 2023

¶22

XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

¶23

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows:

¶24

2.1. The complainant is a tenant at Door No.42, No.133,

¶25

Muttukkadu, ECR Road, Srinivasapuram, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, under the Landlady Mrs. Baby, wife of the 2nd respondent Arjunan and mother of the 3rd respondent Bhuvanesh. The premises was let out to the complaint for commercial purposes and he was running a hotel in the name and style of 'Minar Biryani'.

¶26

2.2. After the Landlady Mrs. Baby died on 16.05.2021, the

¶27

2nd respondent directed the complainant to vacate the premises on the

¶28

ground that the Government issued notice to him for acquisition of land for expanding the road for Highways. According to the complainant, though the respondents 2 and 3 promised to return the advance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- paid by him, they did not do so and when he approached them, they threatened him with dire consequences. He, therefore, filed a complaint before the 1st respondent Police on 01.08.2022 . Since no Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.R.C. No. 97 of 2023

¶31

action was taken against the respondents 2 and 3 by the police, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.16706/2022 before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, praying to direct the 1st respondent, the Inspector of Police, J6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 01.08.2022 and to investigate the case under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and to file a final report. The said petition was dismissed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on the ground that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and there is no material to direct the 1st respondent police to register FIR on the complaint given by the complainant. Aggrieved over the said orders, the present revision is filed.

¶32

Mr.S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the complainant, even in his notice dated 24.05.2022 to the accused, had specifically mentioned that both the accused threatened him with dire consequences and hence, the trial court was totally wrong in dismissing his complaint on the ground that it is Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.R.C. No. 97 of 2023

¶35

civil in nature and therefore, prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision

¶36

Case.

¶37

Per contra, Mr.A.Vinothraja, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police contended that the complainant had vacated the premises even in the year 2022 after damaging the building. It is also his contention that, the respondents 2 and 3 sent a suitable reply to the legal notice dated 24/05/2022, in which it is clearly stated that they never threatened the complainant with dire consequences. In fact they have claimed a sum of Rs.9 lakhs from the present revision petitioner for renovating the premises which was damaged by the latter.

¶38

The main grievance of the complainant is that the respondents 2 and 3 have not returned his advance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- paid by him at the time of entering into a rental agreement. It is seen from the records that there were exchange of notices between the parties and if the complainant wants to recover the Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.R.C. No. 97 of 2023

¶41

amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, he can approach a Civil Court, if so advised. The allegations made by the complainant in his notice dated 24.05.2022 has been suitably replied by the respondents 2 and 3 and they have denied all the allegations made by the complainant. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial court.

¶42

6. In the result,

¶43

i. the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶44

ii. the orders dated 19.10.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.16706 of 2022, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, is confirmed.

¶45

21 .09.2023

¶46

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

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.R.C. No. 97 of 2023

¶50

R. HEMALATHA, J. bga

¶51

¶52

XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

¶53

Crl. R.C. No.97 of 2023

¶54

21.09.2023

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

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

A.Abdulla Basha v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Abdulla Basha v. 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

Syed Ibrahim @ Kurangu Syed Vs the State Rep by

Vasanthi Vs State Rep by

G.Kumutha Vs Inspector of Police

Rajesh Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Manohar Vs Geeta Lakshmi

Shyamsudheer Vs State Rep.by