Madras High Court
CRL RC/1861/2026 of T. Senthil Kumar Vs S. Amardeep on 21 September 2026
Crl.RC.No.1861 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.RC.No.1861 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010761312026}
T.Senthil Kumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. S.Amardeep
2. Sudhakar
3. The Inspector of Police,
G1 Vepery Police Station,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.39081 of 2024 dated 15.10.2025 and direct the third respondent to register a case on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 18.11.2023 and investigate the same.
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr.M.Sasikumar
For Respondent(s)
: Mr.Prem Rajkumar, for R1& R2
: Mr.A.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 prayer for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Crl.RC.No.1861 of 2026
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2.1 The case of the petitioner as per his complaint is that the 1st respondent is his landlord; that the 1st and 2nd respondents, along with their henchmen, broke open the lock, trespassed into the shop run by the petitioner and looted goods worth about Rs.10 Lakhs from the shop and took away cash of Rs.10 Lakhs, thus, committed the offences under Sections 451 and 380 of IPC. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 3rd respondent and a CSR was registered. During the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was a defaulter; that on the date of occurrence, the Inspector himself was present at the scene of occurrence; and that no such incident took place, and therefore, the allegation of theft of cash and goods worth about Rs.10 Lakhs was false. 2.2 The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.39081 of 2024, before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, seeking registration of FIR on his complaint, which came to be dismissed, vide impugned order dated 15.10.2025, stating that the petitioner's complaint is false and therefore, the registration of FIR cannot be ordered.
Crl.RC.No.1861 of 2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not present when the alleged occurrence took place; and that the CCTV camera footages would evidence the said fact and therefore, the impugned order refusing to register the FIR is erroneous.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents, who would submit that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter; that since action was taken for evicting the petitioner, he has come up with this false complaint; and that the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the said petition.
5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 3rd respondent, who would state that the report of the 3rd respondent is clear; that the learned Magistrate found the said report to be reasonable, and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking registration of FIR, which cannot be faulted.
6. As stated above, it is the case of the petitioner that the proposed accused broke open the shop of the petitioner and committed theft of Rs.10 Lakhs in cash and goods worth about Rs.10 Lakhs.
7. The 3rd respondent, on the complaint given by the petitioner, had filed a detailed report stating that on the night intervening 18.11.2023 and 19.11.2023,
Crl.RC.No.1861 of 2026
while he was on patrol duty, he saw the 1st respondent herein trying to remove the goods from the shop of the petitioner; that when he enquired, the 1st respondent stated that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent and was refusing to vacate the premises and therefore, he was removing the goods.
8. The Inspector further stated in his report that he thereafter, called the petitioner and it was agreed between the parties that the 1st respondent should keep the goods removed in the shop; that further action for eviction should be taken only through Court and therefore, the allegation that the cash and goods were stolen were false.
9. This Court is of the view that there is nothing to disbelieve the report of the 3rd respondent. Though the conduct of the 1st respondent in trying to remove the goods at 2 a.m. in the morning cannot be appreciated, the question is whether he had committed theft of cash of Rs.10 Lakhs and goods worth about Rs.10 Lakhs.
10. The 3rd respondent, who was a witness to the occurrence, had clearly stated that he had ensured that the 1st respondent keeps the goods back in the premises and advised both the parties to approach the civil court. At that point of time, there was no complaint of any theft of cash or goods by the petitioner.
Crl.RC.No.1861 of 2026
11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the landlord and tenant has been blown out of proportion; and that an exaggerated version has been lodged as a complaint by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration all these facts, had rightly refused for registration of an FIR and this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the said finding.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, this criminal revision case stands dismissed. 21.09.2026 skt Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:
1. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, G1 Vepery Police Station, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
Crl.RC.No.1861 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.RC.No.1861 of 2026 21.09.2026