Dismissed¶28

J.Prakasi Bellarmine v. The State rep by The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Jan 2026CRL RC/30/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL RC No. 30 of 2026, Madras High Court, Justice Sunder Mohan, 12-01-2026; protest petition dismissed; liberty to file private complaint; Crime No.165 of 2021; IPC Sections 420, 120-B, 34; closure as Mistake of Facts; Judicial Magistrate-I Alandur; Crl.M.P.No.4435 of 2023; petitioner J.Prakasi Bellarmine; advocate A.Girinath; cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a private complaint, provided cognizable offences are made out. ¶28

J.Prakasi Bellarmine Vs The State rep by The Sub… — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL RC No. 30 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL RC No. 30 of 2026

¶7

1. J.Prakasi Bellarmine

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The State rep by The Sub Inspector of Police Team-XXI-A, CCB-EF-III, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

To set aside the Impugned order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.4435 of 2023 in Crime No.165 of 2021 dated 05.12.2025 on the file of the Honble Judicial Magistrate-I, at Alandur.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Girinath

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The revision challenges the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4435 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate–I, Alandur,

¶17

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

¶18

CRL RC No. 30 of 2026

¶19

whereby the protest petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint, if there is evidence on his side.

¶20

The petitioner had lodged a complaint against the proposed accused, which came to be registered in Crime No.165 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of the IPC.

¶21

Upon investigation, the respondent closed the case as “Mistake of Facts”. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a protest petition, which was dismissed by the impugned order.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate, having granted liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint, ought to have treated the protest petition itself as a private complaint.

¶23

There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the learned Magistrate can treat the protest petition as a private complaint. However, this Court is of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if he files a separate private complaint. Moreso, since in the protest petition, the petitioner has raised several legal issues and grounds challenging the closure report apart from reiterating the

¶24

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

¶25

CRL RC No. 30 of 2026

¶26

complaint. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a

¶27

private complaint, provided cognizable offences are made out.

¶28