Vimal Kumar Jain v. Mangilal

Madras HC2 Sept 2025CRL RC/1437/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL.R.C.No.1437 of 2024 (decided 02.09.2025, T.V.Thamilselvi, J.): revision under Section 397 CrPC against dismissal of a Section 156(3) CrPC petition by II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, which had treated a theft complaint (missing 4 kg pledged gold and Rs.50 lakhs cash from pawn broker shop 'Mittalal Sowcar') as a civil landlord-tenant dispute; FIR Crime No.299 of 2023, Ice House PS, under Sections 381, 465, 468, 109 IPC pending; Magistrate's order set aside, revision allowed, police directed to investigate within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore dated 13.06.2024 set aside; Criminal Revision Petition allowed; fourth respondent/Police directed to investigate the matter in the manner known to law within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Vimal Kumar Jain Vs Mangilal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in treating the dispute as civil in nature (landlord and tenant) and dismissing the petitioner's petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as not maintainable, instead of requiring police action on the pending complaint. +1 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

The Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that although the first accused had been removed from service, he refused to vacate the premises which was illegally occupied.

¶¶34-36

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in CRL.M.P.No.24824 of 2024 dated 13.06.2024 is set aside and the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶¶37-39

Key takeaways

The fourth respondent/Police is directed to investigate the matter in the manner known to law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶40-42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (S.397 Cr.P.C.) — Challenge to dismissal by II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore of petition under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register a case, investigate and file final report against Mangilal and 2 others, alleged to have stolen 4 kilos of pledged gold ornaments and cash of about Rs.50 lakhs from the petitioner's late father's pawn broker business ('Mittalal Sowcar') — Magistrate held the matter was a civil/landlord-and-tenant dispute and relegated petitioner to Civil Court — Held: FIR in Crime No.299 of 2023 (Ice House Police Station) under Sections 381, 465, 468, 109 IPC was pending and C.S.R.No.65 of 2024 issued; the Trial Court failed to take note that the first accused, though removed from service, refused to vacate the premises illegally occupied — Impugned order dated 13.06.2024 set aside, revision allowed — Fourth respondent/Police directed to investigate in the manner known to law within two weeks of receipt of copy of order.

¶1

CRL.R.C.No.1437 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRL.R.C.No.1437 of 2024

¶7

Vimal Kumar Jain ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.Mangilal

¶10

2.Meera Devi

¶11

3.Bharat

¶12

4.State represented by The Inspector of Police, D-3, Ice House Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.,

¶14

against the dismissal order passed by learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai in CRL.M.P.No.24824 of 2024 dated 13.06.2024, filed for

¶15

direction to be given to the respondent to register a case, investigate and file a final report against Mangilal and 2 others.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra

¶17

For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratab for R4 Government Advocate (Criminal Side) O R D E R

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

CRL.R.C.No.1437 of 2024

¶21

This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against

¶22

the dismissal order passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai in CRL.M.P.No.24824 of 2024 dated 13.06.2024 and consequently direct the fourth respondent to register a case, investigate and file a final report against Mangilal and 2 others.

¶23

2.Brief facts of the case:

¶24

The complainant's father viz., Mr.Surajmal Ji was running a Pawn Broker Shop for several decades in the name of “Mittalal Sowcar” and Mr.Surajmal Ji had died on 07.01.2022. Due to the old age and health issues, the first accused Mangilal was appointed by the complainant's father to look after his business. Being an employee, the first accused was permitted to stay in the ground floor of rear portion of the building. After the death of his parents, when he and his brothers verified and checked the accounts and pledged articles, they shocked to know that 4 kilos of pledged gold ornaments missing and stolen by the first accused Mangilal along with one Guruprasad and the said Mangilal also stolen cash for worth about Rs.50 lakhs. Based on the complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.299 of 2023 and during the course of investigation Guruprasad was arrested and Mangilal surrendered after 3 months.

¶25

3.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

CRL.R.C.No.1437 of 2024

¶28

Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court erroneously held that main issue between the petitioner and respondents was landlord and tenant issue and the matter pertains to civil nature and had directed the petitioner to approach Civil Court for vacate the respondents from his premises and hence, the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., dismissed the petition as not maintainable, is erroneous and unsustainable. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order.

¶30

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is very much requires the entire portion of the premises to run his business peacefully and illegal occupation of the accused may be removed.

¶31

6.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the FIR was registered against the accused in Crime No.299 of 2023 before Ice House Police Station for the offence under Sections 381, 465, 468, 109 IPC and the case is still pending under investigation and a C.S.R.No.65 of 2024 was also issued by the Police Station, Ice House. According to the petitioner, the first accused was removed Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

CRL.R.C.No.1437 of 2024

¶34

from the service. However, the accused refused to vacate the premises which

¶35

was illegally occupied. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court has failed

¶36

to take note of the above fact.

¶37

7.Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the submission

¶38

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai in CRL.M.P.No.24824 of 2024

¶39

dated 13.06.2024 is set aside and the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶40

8.The fourth respondent/Police is directed to investigate the matter in the

¶41

manner known to law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶42

copy of this order.

¶43

02.09.2025

¶44

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order pam