Dismissed

Chidambaraselvaraj v. Perumalnadar

Madras HC5 Jun 2023CRL RC(MD)/104/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed under CrPC sections 397 and 401 challenging an order that dismissed a private complaint alleging land grabbing. The Court held the allegations were civil in nature and no offence was made out.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed; the petitioner allowed to work out remedy in civil court.

Chidambaraselvaraj Vs Perumalnadar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C(MD)No.104 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.R.C(MD)No.104 of 2019

¶7

Chidambaraselvaraj

¶8

... Revision Petitioner/

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Perumal Nadar 2.Vaidhyalingam 3.Jeyaraman 4.Dhanasekaran 5.Chellamani

¶12

6.Muthukaruppan

¶13

... Respondents/ Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.61 of 2019, dated 31.01.2019 on the file of the learned Special Court for Anti-Land Grabbing, Tirunelveli and set aside the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja For RR 1, 5 & 6 : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan For RR 2 to 4 : No appearance

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

Crl.R.C(MD)No.104 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This revision has been filed as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.61 of 2019, dated 31.01.2019, on the file of the learned Special Court for Anti-Land Grabbing, Tirunelveli, thereby dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶22

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 5 and 6 and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

3.On perusal of the complaint revealed that the

¶24

respondents, without any title over the property comprised in Survey Nos.97/1 and 98/2, executed settlement deeds registered vide Document Nos.4075 and 4091 of 2018, dated 18.09.2018. Therefore, he lodged a complaint and the same was not considered by the jurisdictional police. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to

¶25

file a private complaint and sought for a direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to register the F.I.R.

¶26

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

¶27

2/4

¶28

Crl.R.C(MD)No.104 of 2019

¶29

4.On perusal of the records revealed that all the allegations made in the complaint are civil in nature. Therefore, no offence is made out and the trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶31

However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before

¶32

the competent civil Court in accordance with law, if he is so advised.

¶33

05.06.2023

¶34

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ps

¶35

¶36

The Special Court for Anti-Land Grabbing, Tirunelveli.

¶37

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

¶38

3/4

¶39

Crl.R.C(MD)No.104 of 2019

¶40

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶41

¶42

Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.104 of 2019

¶43

05.06.2023

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

Chidambaraselvaraj v. Perumalnadar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chidambaraselvaraj v. Perumalnadar

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

Manickam Vs Deiveega Pandian

M. Thiagarajan Vs Senthilkumar

T.Vijayakumar, Vs Mrs.Sai Lakshmi, Inspector of Police

S. Palaniselvi Vs a.R.Vishwanathan

Azhageswaran Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Ramesh Vs S. Senthilkumar