Dismissed¶26

K.Bharathidasan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Mar 2025CRL RC/390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision petition dismissed; dispute held civil in nature; execution of document to be decided only by Civil Court; no perversity found in Magistrate's order dated 31.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.3111 of 2024; petitioner given liberty to approach Civil Court; Sections 397-401 Cr.P.C. / Sections 438-442 BNSS; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Justice P. Velmurugan; Uthukottai; Tiruvallur; Periyapalayam Police Station.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the revision; petitioner left at liberty to approach the Civil Court to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. ¶26

K.Bharathidasan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.R.C.No. 390 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.390 of 2025

... Petitioner

K.Bharathidasan

The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, Utthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Periyapalayam Police Station, Periyapalayam, Utthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C., (Section 438 to 442 of BNSS), to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3111 of 2024 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Uthukottai.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Balamurugan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Crl.R.C.No. 390 of 2025

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3111 of 2024 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Uthukottai.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentPolice and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

On a perusal of the complaint and materials produced by the petitioner, it is seen that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not executed the document. Whether the document has been executed by the petitioner or not can be decided only by the Civil Court. The petitioner is able to prove the same before the Civil Court. If

¶22

the Civil Court finds that the document has not been executed by the petitioner, he can approach the Magistrate concerned, for taking criminal Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.R.C.No. 390 of 2025

¶25

action. This Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai.

¶26

In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶27

06.03.2025

¶28

mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

¶29