Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 25‑09‑2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: V. Vetri Vendan, Banumathi Vezhavendan and Ezhil Vendhan filed CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025 seeking to set aside the order dated 01‑Nov‑2025 passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No. 4230 of 2025.
  • Respondents: The Inspector of Police, E‑2, Royapettah Police Station and M. Kamaraj.
  • The Magistrate, exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), directed the jurisdictional police to register a First Information Report (FIR) on a complaint lodged by the second respondent (M. Kamaraj) and to investigate.
  • Petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil – a landlord‑tenant matter already pending before the Rent Court (R.L.T.O.P. No. 58 of 2020, appeal pending) – and that the complaint was a “counter‑blast” to pressure them in eviction proceedings. They alleged non‑compliance with Section 154 CrPC, suppression of material facts, lack of electronic evidence, and that the Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind.
  • The second respondent, a partner in the partnership firm “Brunch Chat & Juices” (engaged in chats, sandwiches and beverages), argued that the complaint disclosed independent cognizable offences – criminal trespass, theft, mischief, criminal intimidation and unlawful interference with possession – committed during November‑December 2024, amounting to loss of approximately Rs 15,00,000. He highlighted repeated complaints to police, failure of police to register an FIR, and the existence of a decree of permanent injunction protecting his possession.
  • Both sides filed detailed counter‑affidavits. The Court, on 16‑Jun‑2026, gave the petitioners two weeks to file a rejoinder; the petitioners chose not to file one and argued on merits.
  • The Court examined the scope of Section 156(3) CrPC, distinguishing it from Section 200 CrPC, and reiterated that the Magistrate’s role is limited to determining whether the complaint, on a prima‑facie basis, discloses cognizable offences warranting investigation. Detailed factual scrutiny, evidentiary appraisal, or defence assessment are matters for the investigating agency and, if required, the trial court.
  • The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Rocky vs State of Telangana (2025), C.S. Prasad vs C.Satyakumar (2026), Nazibul Rahim Khan vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2026), Accama Sam Jacob vs State of Karnataka (2026)) affirming that civil proceedings do not bar criminal investigation where the ingredients of a cognizable offence are prima‑facie established.
  • The Court found that the complaint contained specific dates, description of the alleged acts, identity of participants, and a valuation of the removed articles (Rs 15,00,000). CCTV footage was annexed on a pen‑drive with a Section 65B certificate, and the Magistrate’s order expressly recorded that the footage disclosed a prima‑facie case of trespass.
  • The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that Section 156(3) requires exhaustive evidentiary examination or that the petitioners’ defence should be entertained at the revision stage.
  • It also held that the second respondent had exhausted statutory remedies under Section 154 CrPC by repeatedly lodging complaints and approaching superior police authorities before invoking the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.

Final Outcome

  • The revision petition is dismissed.
  • The order dated 01‑Nov‑2025 passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate is affirmed.
  • The Inspector of Police, E‑2, Royapettah Police Station is directed to register a First Information Report on the complaint dated 22‑Nov‑2024 and to conduct the investigation in accordance with law.
  • No order as to costs is made.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Landlord‑Tenant Dispute