The High Court dismissed a criminal revision against an order dismissing a criminal petition. The Court found the petitioner's claim of arson to be false, as the FIR report indicated the fire was caused by electrocution, and the petition was rightly rejected.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed with leave to apply for compensation under the relevant Scheme.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.C.No.975 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.R.C.No.975 of 2024
PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.856 of 2023 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi.
For Petitioner : Party-in-person
_________ Page 1 of 5
O R D E R
Crl.R.C.No.975 of 2024
The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated
19.12.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.856 of 2023 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi.
2. The petitioner/party-in-person appeared before this Court and submits that he was a resident of Avadaiyarpattu, Vikravandi Taluk, Villupuram District and he made a complaint on 19.02.2021 stating that the respondents have set fire to his house, thereby, a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- and valuable household articles were damaged. The Fire officials and the Police came to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement from the petitioner, however, no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner has made another complaint on 17.03.2021 and C.S.R was assigned, however, the same was closed as compromise was effected between the parties, but no such compromise was effected. Hence, he has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.856 of 2023 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
_________ Page 2 of 5
Crl.R.C.No.975 of 2024
Vikravandi against the respondents, however, the trial Court has not considered all those aspects and dismissed the petition. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
3. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
4. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner and the
respondents are close relatives and though the petitioner claims that the respondents set fire to his house, in the inquiry report submitted by the Police, it has been stated that the house of the petitioner was fired due to electrocution and the respondents have not set fire to his house and the first respondent's house was also damaged due to such electrocution. Thereby, the First Information Report was not registered on the complaint made by the petitioner. The trial Court has considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents, which does not require any interference by this Court. However, it is left open to
_________ Page 3 of 5
Crl.R.C.No.975 of 2024
the petitioner to make appropriate application before the District Administration for claiming compensation under the relevant Scheme in the manner known to law.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
11.06.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb
To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi.
_________ Page 4 of 5
Crl.R.C.No.975 of 2024
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
ssb
Crl.R.C.No.975 of 2024
11.06.2024
_________ Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the District Munsif court's dismissal of the petitioner's criminal petition alleging false electric shock damage claims.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sivabalan
Tamilpandiyan
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
