Dismissed¶55

Muthu v. Muniyandi

Madras HC5 Nov 2025CRL RC(MD)/1159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 175 BNSS petition for direction to register FIR dismissed; forgery and impersonation alleged in sale deeds dated 29.12.1992 and 13.10.2000; offences alleged under BNS Sections 319(2), 316(2), 336(3), 340(2), 351(2); belated complaint after more than 24 years; registered documents and civil-natured dispute to be agitated before civil forum; requirement of prima facie material for invoking criminal process; criminal process not for settling private property disputes; Crl.RC(MD) No.1159 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Shamim Ahmed, J., decided 05.11.2025; revision dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Criminal Revision Case was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶55

Muthu Vs Muniyandi — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Criminal Revision Case was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revision Petitioner's complaint alleging that sale deeds dated 29.12.1992 and 13.10.2000 were created by impersonation and forgery discloses a cognizable offence warranting investigation. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Merely alleging that a person acted fraudulently does not establish that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law; the allegation must be supported by prima facie material, and courts should allow invocation of the criminal process only where there are specific allegations with supporting materials clearly constituting criminal offences.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The complaint was lodged very belatedly, more than 24 years after the date of the sale deeds complained of.

¶44

Key takeaways

The sale deeds being registered documents governed by civil law, and the basic dispute being of a civil nature, it can be agitated only before the appropriate civil forum.ratio¶44
There are only mere allegations in the complaint regarding forgery and impersonation, with no prima facie material indicating such forgery and impersonation; even before this Court the petitioner's counsel could not point out prima facie evidence disclosing a cognizable offence.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision dismissed — Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Shamim Ahmed, J.) upheld the order dated 22.07.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, dismissing a petition under Section 175 BNSS seeking a direction to register a case against Respondents 1 and 2 for allegedly creating sale deeds dated 29.12.1992 and 13.10.2000 by impersonation and forgery (offences alleged under Sections 319(2), 316(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 351(2) BNS). Held: a mere allegation of fraudulent conduct, unsupported by prima facie material, does not show a cognizable offence; the complaint, filed more than 24 years after the registered sale deeds, raised a civil dispute concerning registered documents triable only before the civil forum; the criminal process cannot be invoked to settle private property disputes; the police rightly declined to register a case and the Magistrate's well-reasoned order warranted no interference.

¶1

Crl.RC(MD).No.1159 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

CRL RC(MD) No.1159 of 2025

¶7

Muthu, S/o. Chinnan Asari D.No.7, Nadutheru, Rajamill Compound Madurai - 625 001.

¶8

Revision Petitioner

¶9

¶10

Muniyandi, S/o. Alagu Asari, Nearby Kaliyiamman Kovil, Aasari Veethi, South Street, Thirumangalam Town Madurai District.

¶11

Asha Banu, D/o. Syed, D.No.8, Nagoor Andavar Street Thirumangalam Town, Madurai District.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Madurai District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Office of The Superintendent of Police Madurai. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records relating to the order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.4301 of 2025 by the Judicial Magistrate I, Madurai and to set aside the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manoharan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.A.M.P.Madubalan-R1 Mr.Kalanjiyam-R2

¶17

1/8

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.RC(MD).No.1159 of 2025

¶20

Mr.M.Karunanithi, GA-RR3 & 4

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, to call for the records relating to the order, dated 22.07.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.4301 of 2025 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and to set aside the same.

¶23

The case of the Petitioner is that in respect of his property, worth about Rs.5 crores, the 1st Respondent and his brother bose, by impersonation and forgery, had created false documents, namely, sale deeds, dated 29.12.1992 (Document No.2912 of 1992) and 13.10.2000 (Document No.5210 of 2000), in their favour and in favour of the 2nd Respondent, respectively. Hence, the Revision Petitioner had preferred a Petition in Crl.MP.No.4301 of 2025 under Section 175 of BNSS before the court

¶24

below, seeking for a direction to the Respondent Police to register a case against the Respondents 1 and 2 and after investigation, to file a final report against them. By the impugned order, the said Petition was dismissed. As against the same, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

¶25

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents 3 and 4, it is stated that instead of availing civil remedies, the Revision Petitioner has invoked the criminal jurisdiction and that since no cognizable offence

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.RC(MD).No.1159 of 2025

¶29

was made out, no criminal case was registered. Hence, the court below has rightly dismissed the Petition, seeking police investigation, by the impugned order.

¶30

This Court heard Mr.R.Manoharan, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, Mr.A.M.P.Madubalan, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent, Mr.Kalanjiyam, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent and Mr.M.Karunanithi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondents 3 and 4 and considered their submissions and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

¶31

According to the Revision Petitioner, in respect of of his property, by impersonation and forgery, the 1st Respondent and his brother have created sale deeds, dated 29.12.1992 and 13.10.2000, in their favour and in favour of the 2nd Respondent, respectively. The allegations made out in the application filed under Section 175 of BNSS before the court below would constitute cognizable offence. But, without considering the said aspect, the Trial Court had erroneously dismissed the Petition, by the impugned order, which warrants interferenc by this Court.

¶32

It is the case of the Respondents 1 and 2 that they are the bona fide purchasers of the property in question and that if the Revision Petitioner is really aggrieved, it is open to him to address the issue before

¶33

3/8

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.RC(MD).No.1159 of 2025

¶36

appropriate civil forum. Since the dispute is of civil nature, criminal revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Thus, the impugned order, dismissing the Petition, seeking criminal investigation, was rightly passed by the court below.

¶37

While reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 3 and 4 that since the issue involved in this case is of civil nature, the Revision Petitioner ought to have availed alternative remedy of approaching the civil forum, but without exhausting such remedy, the Revision Petitioner had erroneously invoked the criminal jurisdiction, that too very much belatedly after more than 24 years, without any supporting materials and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

It is seen from the records that the complaint, which was filed on 16.06.2025, of the Revision Petitioner is that the Respondent 1 and his brother Bose have created a sale deed dated 29.12.1992 in their favour and thereafter, a sale deed dated, 13.10.2000, in favour of the 2nd Respondent, respectively, by impersonation and forgery, in respect of his valuable property. That is, his and his mother's signatures were forged, for creating the said documents. Hence, they have committed

¶39

4/8

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.RC(MD).No.1159 of 2025

¶42

the offences under Sections 319(2), 316(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 351(2) of BNS.

¶43

Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court and the High Courts have held in a catena of decision that by merely alleging that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless such allegation should be supported by prima facie material. The Courts should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials, which clearly constitute criminal offences.

¶44

10.In this case, the Revision Petitioner had preferred the said complaint very much belatedly after more than 24 years from the date of the said sale deeds. Since the said sale deeds, both being registered documents, are governed by civil law and when the basic dispute is of civil nature, they can be agitated only before appropriate civil forum. Further, this Court finds that there are only mere allegations in the complaint in respect of forgery and impersonation and there is no prima facie material to indicate such forgery and impersonation. This Court is of the view that considering the above said aspects, the court below had rightly passed the impugned order, dismissing the Petition, seeking criminal investigation.

¶45

5/8

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.RC(MD).No.1159 of 2025

¶48

11.Before this court, the concerned Police Authorities have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the complaints of the Revision Petitioner dated, 14.05.2025 and 19.05.2025, were duly considered and they came to a conclusion that the allegations levelled by the Revision Petitioner are relating to civil dispute and hence, no criminal case was registered, as when the basic dispute is of civil nature, the criminal process cannot be invoked to settle private property disputes.

¶49

12.In the impugned order, the court below has found that there is no prima facie material to substantiate the allegations levelled by the Revision Petitioner. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioner is not able to point out any prima facie evidence, disclosing a cognizable offence, as alleged by the Revision Petitioner in the complaint. Hence, this Court is of the view that the concerned Police Authorities have also rightly acted, in not registering a criminal case, as sought for by the Revision Petitioner.

¶50

In view of the above said discussions and reasons, this Court is of the view that the court below, after perusing the records, materials, and the averments of the Revision Petitioner, had rightly held that no prima facie material has been shown to constitute any cognizable offence warranting investigation under Section 175(3) of BNS and accordingly,

¶51

6/8

¶52

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

¶53

Crl.RC(MD).No.1159 of 2025

¶54

passed the impugned order, dismissing the prayer of the Revision Petitioner, which is a well reasoned order, which warrants no interferenc by this Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶55