Dismissed¶30

Boopeshkupta v. Hariharan

Madras HC10 Feb 2026CRL RC/293/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal colour to civil dispute; breach of contract not a cognizable offence; dismissal of complaint under Section 223 BNSS upheld; offences alleged under Sections 127(2), 303(2), 351(2) of BNS; theft of construction tools unsubstantiated; FIR Crime No.78 of 2025 closed as mistake of fact; revision under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS; Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2025; District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil; Madras High Court; Sunder Mohan, J.; CRL RC No. 293 of 2026; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The dispute is essentially one of breach of contract; the allegation of non-payment of the amount due under the contract would not constitute any cognizable offence. ¶27

Boopeshkupta Vs Hariharan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint under Section 223 BNSS (alleging offences under Sections 127(2), 303(2), 351(2) of BNS) should be allowed, i.e., whether the allegations disclose cognizable offences or merely a civil dispute of breach of contract.

¶21

Court's answer

The dispute is essentially one of breach of contract; the allegation of non-payment of the amount due under the contract would not constitute any cognizable offence.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner did not substantiate the allegation of theft of construction tools; the FIR in Crime No.78 of 2025 was closed as mistake of fact; the alleged threat does not appear to be real; the complaint sought to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

¶28

Key takeaways

The learned Magistrate, after elaborately considering the submissions and the witnesses examined, found that the allegations only disclose a civil dispute; this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Sunder Mohan, J.), by order dated 10-02-2026 in CRL RC No. 293 of 2026, dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS challenging the order dated 14.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2025 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, dismissing the petitioner's complaint under Section 223 BNSS alleging offences under Sections 127(2), 303(2), 351(2) of BNS. Holding: the claim for Rs.10,00,000/- for construction work is essentially a breach-of-contract/civil dispute and does not constitute a cognizable offence; the allegation of theft of construction tools was unsubstantiated (the earlier FIR in Crime No.78 of 2025 having been closed as mistake of fact); the alleged criminal intimidation did not appear real; the complaint was an attempt to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute; no infirmity was found in the impugned order.

¶1

CRL RC No. 293 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL RC No. 293 of 2026

¶6

Boopeshkupta S/o. Ramalingam, Mariyamman Koil Street. Krishnapuram Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

Hariharan S/o.Sugumardoss, Reddiyar Street, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District.

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 14.11.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Sudhakar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint filed

¶15

under Section 223 BNSS alleging commission of offences under Sections 127(2), 303(2), 351(2) of BNS.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

CRL RC No. 293 of 2026

¶19

2.The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner is a building contractor;

¶20

that the accused approached the petitioner for completing the construction of his premises; that the proposed accused negotiated for a price for the said work; that the accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the job done by the petitioner; that the accused was evading payment of the said amount; that thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the accused had removed the tools belonging to the petitioner, which was kept for the purpose of construction; and also committed the offences of criminal intimidation, when the petitioner questioned the accused.

¶21

3.It is seen from the impugned order that the said complaint was dismissed as it only discloses breach of contract between the petitioner and the accused and that the petitioner had not substantiated his allegations that the respondent had removed the construction materials from the premises.

¶22

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation of criminal intimidation are made out and that the accused had removed the materials of the petitioner and that amounts to theft.

¶23

5.Admittedly, there was a contract between the petitioner and the proposed accused. The dispute is essentially relating to the breach of the said

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL RC No. 293 of 2026

¶27

contract. The complaint has been filed alleging non-payment of the amount due under the contract. The said allegation would not constitute any cognizable offence. The other allegation is that the respondent had committed theft of

¶28

construction tools from the site. It is seen that the petitioner had not substantiated the said allegation in any manner. The witnesses examined by the petitioner before the trial Court are of no avail to the petitioner. In fact, the FIR that was registered on the petitioner’s complaint in Crime No.78 of 2025 was closed as mistake of fact. The alleged threat made by the respondent on the face of it does not appear to be real. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner by filing the compliant had sought to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

¶29

6.The learned Magistrate after elaborately considering all the submissions and the witnesses examined on the side of the victim and the petitioner found that the allegations only disclose a civil dispute. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

¶30

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶31

10-02-2026

¶32

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶33

TSG

¶34

Page3 of 4

¶35

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