Madras High Court
CRL RC/1908/2026 of Anandhan Vs Selvakumar on 30 September 2026
Crl.R.C.No.1908 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.1908 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011483872026}
Anandhan
..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Selvakumar,
Supervising Engineer,
Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle.
2. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch Police Station,
Dharmapuri.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023, praying to set aside the order dated 28.05.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.7252
of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri and to allow the above Criminal Revision and to direct the 2nd respondent police to register the FIR by setting the Criminal Law in motion.
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr.M.Sivakumar
For Respondent(s)
: Mr.M.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R2
Crl.R.C.No.1908 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s application filed under Section 156(3) of BNSS, seeking to register an FIR based on his complaint.
2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3. The gist of the petitioner’s complaint is that, after the year 2025, more than twenty one thousand individuals, who were employed with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, obtained employment by using fake educational and experience certificates, forged seals, impersonation and etc. Though the petitioner lodged a complaint before the District Crime Branch, no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of BNSS, which came to be dismissed, vide impugned order.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint discloses cognizable offences and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have directed the registration of an FIR on the petitioner’s complaint.
5. It is seen that the complaint is not specific and the allegations are vague and refers to about twenty one thousand individuals. Criminal law cannot be set
Crl.R.C.No.1908 of 2026
in motion for conducting a roving enquiry. An FIR can be registered only if a cognizable offence is made out. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate was right in dismissing the application by holding that no cognizable offence was made out. There is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned dismissal order passed by the learned Magistrate.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. 30.09.2026 skt Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri.
2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Dharmapuri.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Crl.R.C.No.1908 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.R.C.No.1908 of 2026 30.09.2026