Dismissed¶32

V.K.Suthir v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Dec 2025CRL RC/2376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court criminal revision (CRL RC No. 2376 of 2025, decided 16-12-2025 by Sunder Mohan J.) dismissing a challenge to the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet's refusal to direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC; complaint alleging repayment of Rs.1.5 crores loan and illegal retention of security documents held to disclose no cognizable offence; dispute over loan repayment/settlement of accounts held essentially civil in nature, to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court; respondent: Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-EDF-II, Chennai.

What did the court decide?

The learned Magistrate, after elaborate consideration, rightly concluded that no cognizable offence is made out and that the complaint discloses disputes which cannot be resolved by the police. ¶31

V.K.Suthir Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint and allegations made by the petitioner disclosed any cognizable offence warranting registration of an FIR and police investigation. +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

The learned Magistrate, after elaborate consideration, rightly concluded that no cognizable offence is made out and that the complaint discloses disputes which cannot be resolved by the police.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The respondent police cannot adjudicate the question as to whether the petitioner has repaid the entire loan amount.

¶30

Key takeaways

Disputes as to repayment of the loan are essentially civil in nature and are to be decided by the competent Civil Court, not by the police.ratio¶30
If the petitioner's claim is that the proposed accused are retaining certain documents despite repayment of the loan, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal.ratio¶30
Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Madras High Court, CRL RC No. 2376 of 2025, Sunder Mohan J., 16-12-2025) — Petitioner challenged the order dated 11.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.9534 of 2025 of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, dismissing his application under Section 156(3) CrPC for a direction to register his complaint dated 18.07.2023 as an FIR. The petitioner alleged that he borrowed Rs.1,34,40,000/- from the proposed accused, repaid the amount with interest totalling Rs.1,50,00,000/-, and that the proposed accused were illegally retaining blank papers and other documents given as security for the loan. Held: there admittedly exists a loan transaction between the parties; the police cannot adjudicate whether the petitioner repaid the entire loan; such disputes are essentially civil in nature and are to be decided by the competent Civil Court, and it is open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal regarding retention of the documents. The learned Magistrate rightly concluded that no cognizable offence is made out and that the complaint discloses disputes which cannot be resolved by the police. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.

¶1

CRL RC No. 2376 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL RC No. 2376 of 2025

¶7

V.K.Suthir

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch-EDF-II, TeamII, Veppery, Chennai.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

To set aside the said order dated 11.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.9534 of 2025 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, saidapet, Chennai and consequently direct the respondent/police to register a case based on the petitioners complaint dated 18.07.2023 and proceed with investigation in accordance with law and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court.

¶14

CRL RC No. 2376 of 2025

¶15

For Petitioner(s): R.Dhanasekar

¶16

For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.9534 of 2025, dismissing the petitioner’s application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking

¶19

a direction to register the complaint lodged by the petitioner as an FIR.

¶20

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

¶21

CRL RC No. 2376 of 2025

¶22

The gist of the allegations made in the petitioner’s complaint is that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,34,40,000/- from the proposed accused; that

¶23

the petitioner had repaid the said amount along with interest, totalling Rs.1,50,00,000/-; and that the proposed accused had acknowledged receipt of the said amount; that inspite of the same, the proposed accused failed to return the documents such as blank papers and other documents which were offered as security at the time of availing the loan; and that the retention of the said documents amounts to an offence. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, since the police did not register an FIR, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

¶24

The learned Magistrate found that the dispute relating to settlement of accounts cannot be decided by the police and that no cognizable offence is made out. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate held that no direction could be issued under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had produced documents to establish repayment of the loan amount and also to show that certain documents were handed over to the proposed accused as security while obtaining the loan; that the proposed accused are illegally retaining the said documents; and that therefore, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is

¶26

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

¶27

CRL RC No. 2376 of 2025

¶28

liable to be set aside.

¶29

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

¶30

Admittedly, there exists a loan transaction between the petitioner and the proposed accused. The respondent police cannot adjudicate the question as to whether the petitioner has repaid the entire loan amount. Such disputes are essentially civil in nature and are to be decided by the competent Civil Court. If it is the claim of the petitioner that, despite repayment of the loan amount, the proposed accused are retaining certain documents, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal.

¶31

The learned Magistrate, after elaborate consideration, has rightly concluded that no cognizable offence is made out and that the complaint discloses disputes which cannot be resolved by the police. This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶32