Madras High Court
CRL RC/2223/2026 of A.Ramalinga Muthaliyar Vs Gothandapani on 30 September 2026
Crl.R.C.No.2223 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.2223 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011635532026}
A.Ramalinga Muthaliyar
..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Gothandapani
2. Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan
3. The Station House Officer,
Kilvelur Police Station,
Kilvelur, Nagapattinam District.
..Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS 2023, seeking to call for the records relating to Crl.M.P.No.1340 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kilvelur and set aside the order dated 23.02.2026 passed therein, by allowing this Criminal Revision.
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr.Vanthiyathevan. Veera
for M/s.SVV Law Firm
For Respondent(s)
: Mr.M.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R3
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 Sections 190 r/w. 154 and 200 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.1340 of 2023, seeking registration of an FIR on his complaint.
Crl.R.C.No.2223 of 2026
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the proposed accused are his neighbours; that they have, on account of a boundary dispute, caused damage to the fencing erected by the petitioner and that, they are, therefore, liable for the offences of criminal trespass and mischief for damaging the property of the petitioner. Since no action was taken on the petitioner’s complaint, he approached the learned Magistrate for registration of an FIR on his complaint. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the allegations made in the complaint and the documents filed by the petitioner, found that the dispute is civil in nature as it relates to a boundary dispute, and dismissed the application, vide impugned order.
4. This Court finds absolutely no infirmity in the impugned dismissal order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the absence of any decision by the Civil Court on the boundary dispute between the petitioner and his neighbours, the alleged act of the proposed accused cannot be termed as criminal trespass.
Crl.R.C.No.2223 of 2026
5. For the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. It is needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for an appropriate remedy. 30.09.2026 skt Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:
1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kilvelur.
2. The Station House Officer, Kilvelur Police Station, Kilvelur, Nagapattinam District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Crl.R.C.No.2223 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.R.C.No.2223 of 2026 30.09.2026