Madras High Court
CRL RC/2282/2026 of R.S.T.Pandiyan Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026
CRL RC No. 2282 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2282 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012356392026}
1. R.S.T.Pandiyan
2. N.Shunmugam
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police K4 Anna Nagar East Police Station, Chennai.
2. R.Rajarathinam
..Respondent(s)
To call for the records relating to the order dated 19.09.2026
made in Crl.MP.No.3540 of 2026 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai set aside the same and consequently dismiss the petition filed by the 2nd respondent under section 175(3) of the BNSS 2023.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Conscious Ilango S
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.C.Harish
for Mr.T.Deeraj for R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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
The Revision challenges the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing registration of the First Information Report against the petitioners.
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 05:56:46 pm )
CRL RC No. 2282 of 2026
2. It is the case of the second respondent that he was working as a Lecturer at the District Institute of Education and Training, Perambalur District, and that since he wanted to get transferred to Kallakurichi District, he approached the petitioners, who claimed to have influence with politicians and persons in the State Council for Educational Research and Training and on their demand, the respondent initially paid some sum and subsequently paid totally Rs37,23,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Only) between 05.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 and thereafter, the petitioners had neither repaid the money nor obtained transfer.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation only discloses a civil dispute; that it is a case of loan transaction even accepting the case of the respondents and that the learned Magistrate ought not to have directed registration of FIR without hearing the Police Officer concerned. He would further submit that hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Police would not satisfy this requirement under law.
4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent, who would submit that the Police had not filed any report on the allegations made in the complaint.
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 05:56:46 pm )
CRL RC No. 2282 of 2026
5. Heard learned counsel for the second respondent, who would also confirm that no report was filed by the police on his complaint.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, directing registration of First Information Report without complying the statutory requirements under Section 175(3), is liable to be set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharastra and Ors.1 has held as follows: “40. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the police officer concerned before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3) BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the Police Officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the Police Officer concerned also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the Police Officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.”
7. In view of the same, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to consider the petition afresh, after hearing the Police Officer concerned in terms of Section 175(3) of BNSS and pass appropriate orders.
8. In the meantime, it is reported that the First Information Report has been registered. The investigation in the said First Information Report shall be kept in abeyance until the learned Magistrate decides the petition 1 (2026) 2 SCC 622
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 05:56:46 pm )
CRL RC No. 2282 of 2026
finally. It is needless to say if the learned Magistrate directs registration of the First Information Report, the respondent Police can continue with the investigation and if the learned Magistrate does not disclose any cognizable offence, no further proceedings shall go on in the First Information Report. The learned Magistrate shall complete the process of hearing and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
9. The Criminal Revision Case, accordingly, stands allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.18786 of 2026 is closed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 05:56:46 pm )
CRL RC No. 2282 of 2026
To:
1. The Inspector of Police K4 Anna Nagar East Police Station, Chennai.
2. The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 05:56:46 pm )
CRL RC No. 2282 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL RC No. 2282 of 2026 30-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 05:56:46 pm )