S.S.Chandiran Vs the Station House Officer

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1251 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.03.2025

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1251 of 2023

¶6

S.S.Chandiran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Station House Officer Taluk Police Station Thiruvarur 2. Kumar

¶7

Saranya ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur in Cr.M.P.No.1468 of 2022, dated 29.05.2023 and set aside the same and consequently, direct the learned Magistrate to entertain and allow the petitioner's application filed in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. with a direction to the 1st respondent police for registration of FIR.

¶9

1/8

¶10

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

¶11

Crl.R.C.No.1251 of 2023

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragasam For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents 2 and 3 : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner to set aside

¶15

the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur in Cr.M.P.No.1468 of

¶16

2022, dated 29.05.2023 and consequently, direct the learned Magistrate to entertain and allow the petitioner's application filed under Section 156(3) of

¶17

Cr.P.C. with a direction to the 1st respondent police for registration of FIR.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is the wife of the petitioner's son and the 2nd respondent is the father of the 3rd respondent. The marriage between the son of petitioner and the 3rd respondent took place on 15.09.2016. Thereafter, on 15.02.2020, due to matrimonial dispute, the 3rd respondent left the matrimonial home and was staying in her parents house and

¶19

refused to come back to the matrimonial home despite several requests were 2/8

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.R.C.No.1251 of 2023 made. Therefore, the petitioner's son filed a petition before the Subordinate Court, Tiruvarur, in H.M.O.P. No.21 of 2020 for restitution of conjugal right and the same was transferred to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai and re-numbered as H.M.O.P. No.222 of 2020 based on the petition for transfer

¶22

filed by the 3rd respondent in Tr.C.M.P. No.413 of 2020. Pending restitution petition, the 3rd respondent filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P. No.2740 of 2020 before the III Additional Family Court, Chennai in which, she also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 for return of Seedhana articles along with a document dated 17.09.2016 containing list of jewels weighing 63¼ sovereigns as if, the petitioner and his son had signed the document and the said petition was allowed by order dated 29.03.2022. Subsequently, on

¶23

03.07.2022, the respondents 2 and 3 along with two other persons, came to the petitioner's residence and stood outside and abused him filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences to return the 63¼ sovereigns of jewels

¶24

as per the order of the Court. Since, the petitioner had not received any jewels 3/8

¶25

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

¶26

the 1stst respondent police and also to the Superintendent of Police and since no

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.1251 of 2023 as stated by the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner lodged a complaint before

¶28

the 1stst respondent police and also to the Superintendent of Police and since no

¶29

action was taken, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 156(3) Crl.P.C.

¶30

before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur in Cr.M.P.No.1468 of 2022 seeking

¶31

direction to the 1st respondent police to register FIR, but the same was

¶32

dismissed by order dated 29.05.2023. Hence, challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the

¶34

petitioner nor his son signed the said document and that their signatures have

¶35

been forged by the respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Magistrate invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but the learned Magistrate failed to consider the serious nature of offence and also the prima facie allegations and dismissed the petition.

¶36

Heard and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

It is seen that the the alleged forged document has been introduced in

¶38

4/8

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.R.C.No.1251 of 2023 some other proceedings viz., the matrimonial proceedings in I.A.No.1 of 2020

¶41

in H.M.O.P.No.2740 of 2020 and the competent Family Court, by considering the materials, has partly allowed the interlocutory application directing the son

¶42

of the petitioner to return the Seethana articles. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said order was challenged, but he lost it and thereafter,

¶43

he did not challenge further. However, the petitioner is not a party to the

¶44

matrimonial proceedings in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in H.M.O.P.No.2740 of 2020

¶45

filed by the 3rd respondent against the son of the petitioner herein.

¶46

If at all the said document has been forged, on the side of the

¶47

petitioner, they ought to have taken steps in the matrimonial proceedings to

¶48

send the disputed signature to the forensic lab along with admitted signature

¶49

with contemporary documents, but they failed to take steps in the matrimonial proceedings. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that no prima facie case was

¶50

made out. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the 5/8

¶51

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

¶52

Crl.R.C.No.1251 of 2023

¶53

Magistrate and there is no merit in this revision.

¶54