Dismissed¶27

P.Kannaiah v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Dec 2025CRL RC/2688/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Crl.R.C.No.2688 of 2025, Sunder Mohan J., 08.12.2025: Criminal revision under Sections 438/442 BNSS against dismissal of Section 175(3) BNSS petition seeking direction to register FIR; alleged cheating under Section 420 IPC over Rs.12 lakhs loan of 2019; held non-payment of loan not cheating absent deception at inception; complaint an attempt to convert time-barred money recovery into criminal case; only CSR registered earlier; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and civil suit noted as remedies; no cognizable offence made out; Magistrate's slip on issuer of cheque acknowledged but not decisive; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Non-payment of the loan amount would not attract the offence under Section 420 of the IPC unless there is deception at the inception. ¶26

P.Kannaiah Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 175(3) BNSS (seeking a direction to register an FIR for an alleged offence under Section 420 IPC) is liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

To the limited extent, the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the proposed accused (rather than the petitioner) issued the cheque.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Non-payment of the loan amount would not attract the offence under Section 420 of the IPC unless there is deception at the inception.

¶26

Key takeaways

The complaint in effect seeks to convert a time-barred suit for recovery of money into a criminal complaint.ratio¶26
The learned Magistrate had held correctly that the complaint discloses only a 'criminal dispute' (as printed; the context, in which the Magistrate advised recourse to the civil court, indicates a civil dispute).ratio¶26
No cognizable offence has been made out in the petitioner's complaint, and consequently there is no infirmity in the impugned order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Sunder Mohan, J.), by order dated 08.12.2025, dismissed Crl.R.C.No.2688 of 2025 filed under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS challenging the order dated 03.01.2025 of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking a direction to register an FIR for an alleged offence under Section 420 IPC in respect of a Rs.12 lakhs loan said to have been advanced in 2019. While agreeing, to a limited extent, that the Magistrate erred in recording that the proposed accused (and not the petitioner) had issued the cheque, the Court held that mere non-payment of a loan does not attract Section 420 IPC absent deception at the inception; that the complaint in effect sought to convert a time-barred claim for recovery of money into a criminal complaint; and that no cognizable offence was made out, there being no infirmity in the impugned order. The police had earlier registered only a CSR, and the Magistrate had noted the availability of civil remedies including a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.2688 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.2688 of 2025

¶7

P.Kannaiah ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. The Inspector of Police, J4, Kottupuram Police Station, Chennai.

¶10

2. Durai

¶11

3. Poongodi ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS , to set aside the Order passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.9593 of 2025 dated 03.01.2025 by allowing the revision and direct the jurisdiction police to file FIR.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sathyiyamoorthy For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) – R1

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner challenges the Order passed by the learned IX

¶16

Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the petition filed under section 175[3] of BNSS.

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.2688 of 2025

¶20

The gist of the complaint of the petitioner is that the proposed accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.12 lakhs from him; that in spite of repeated demands, they have failed to repay the said money; that the petitioner had sufficient proof for lending the said amount; and that the proposed accused therefore, have committed offence under section 420 IPC.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Order passed by the learned Magistrate is without proper appreciation of facts; that it was the petitioner who had issued the cheque while lending the amount to the proposed accused; that the learned Magistrate had observed erroneously that proposed accused issued the cheque; and that since there is erroneous appreciation of facts by the learned Magistrate, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside and the respondents have to be directed to register the First Information Report.

¶22

It is seen that the jurisdictional police had refused to register the First Information Report and only a CSR was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had dismissed the said petition by observing that the proposed accused had issued two cheques in favour of the petitioner and that it is for the petitioner to 2/5

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.R.C.No.2688 of 2025 approach the civil court or file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; and that the transaction is a time barred loan transaction.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner is right to the limited extent in

¶26

submitting that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the proposed accused issued the cheque. However, on a reading of the complaint, it is seen that no offence has been made on the complaint given by the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, it is a loan transaction which took place in the year 2019. The non payment of the loan amount would not attract the offence under section 420 of IPC unless there is deception at the inception. The complaint in effect seeks to convert a time barred suit for recovery of money into a criminal complaint. In fact that the learned Magistrate has held correctly that the complaint discloses only a criminal dispute. Hence, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order as no cognizable offence has been made out in his complaint.

¶27

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

08.12.2025

Index : Yes/No

3/5

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

¶32

Crl.R.C.No.2688 of 2025