L.Ramesh Vs The Commissioner of Police

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, to set aside the order dated 07.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3529 of 2025 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases at Egmore.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gnanam

¶17

Page No.1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2026

¶20

For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Vinothraja

¶21

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Magistrate

¶24

accepting the negative final report filed by the respondent herein on the complaint given by the petitioner.

¶25

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his signature was forged and a life certificate was obtained, and certain sale deeds were executed in favour of third parties and he lodged a complaint to the Police. Since the Police did not register the complaint, the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate, who passed an order directing the respondent to conduct an enquiry and file a report. As there was a delay in filing the report, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.28950 of 2025 for a direction to the respondent to comply with the direction of the learned Magistrate. This Court after recording the fact that a report had been filed by the respondent had closed the Criminal Original Petition with liberty to challenge the final report in the manner known to law.

¶26

Page No.2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2026

¶29

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the report of the respondent filed without registering an F.I.R cannot be sustained and consequently, the order accepting the report has to be set aside.

¶30

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents, per contra, would submit that o n the very same allegations, the mother of the petitioner had lodged a complaint, which was registered in Crime No.138 of 2022 on the file of the CCB/2^nd respondent herein and the same was closed as “further action dropped”. Since the allegations were found to be false, the respondent filed the report, which cannot be faulted.

¶31

5. Admittedly, the same complaint given by the petitioner’s mother was closed after registering the F.I.R in Crime No.138 of 2022. The respondent's report states that the allegation that the petitioner’s signature was forged in the life certificate is not correct. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. In view of the same, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶32

Page No.3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2026

¶35

6. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is

¶36

dismissed.

¶37

04.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Mac

¶38

To

¶39

1 . The Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases at Egmore.

¶40

2. 1. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery,

¶41

Page No.4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2026

¶44

Chennai – 600 007

¶45

3. The Inspector of Police, CCB-2, Land Grabbing – 2, Office of the Commissioner of Public, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 4. The Inspector of Police, Land Fraud Investigating Wing – II, Gama-6, Central Crime Branch-III, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Mac

Page No.5 of 6

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

¶50

Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2026

¶51

Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2026