Petitioner sought revision against dismissal of his Section 175(3) BNSS application directing police to register an FIR for cheating and criminal intimidation based on dishonoured loan cheques. The High Court held no deception was averred—only breach of promise—and threat and abuse allegations were vague, and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2026
Varadharaj
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Station House Officer, Villianur Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry – 605 110.
2. Ariyaselvam ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, to set aside the order dated 19.09.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.3221 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Kallakurichi and direct the respondent police to register the case against the proposed accused based on the petitioner complaint dated 24.04.2023 and 21.06.2024 by allowing this revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vijayaragavan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
Page No.1 of 5
Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2026
The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Kallakurichi in Crl.M.P.No.3221 of 2024 filed under Section 175(3) BNSS, directing the respondent police to register an F.I.R on the petitioner's complaint.
Page No.2 of 5
Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2026
his complaint.
3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that the allegations did not constitute the offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC, 294(b) or 506(ii) IPC and that the complaint was lodged only because the petitioner’s complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been quashed by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Page No.3 of 5
Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2026
representation. The allegation is that the proposed accused had obtained loan and failed to repay the same. It only discloses a breach of promise and no deception is made out. That apart, the allegations with regard to the alleged threat and filthy abusing the petitioner are vague. It is well settled that unless there is a real threat, the offence under Section 506(II) IPC would not be made out. Section 294 (b) IPC would be made out only if an obscene word is uttered or an obscene act is committed in a public place. There is no such allegation in the complaint. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application.
6. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
08.01.2026
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Mac
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Mac
To
1 . The Judicial Magistrate – II, Kallakurichi
Page No.4 of 5
Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2026
2. The Station House Officer, Villianur Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry – 605 110.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2026
08.01.2026
Page No.5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Did the Magistrate err in refusing to direct registration of FIR where the complaint alleged cheating over unpaid loan cheques and vague allegations of threat and abuse?
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Varadharaj
The Station House Officer, Villianur Police Station
Ariyaselvam
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
