Madras High Court
CRL RC/2101/2026 of M.Savithri Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police on 21 September 2026
CRL.R.C.No.2101 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL.R.C.No.2101 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012189462026}
M.Savithri
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Palladam Police Station, Palladam, Tiruppur.
2. Sivasamy
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Revision filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS Act, to set aside the order dated 06.08.2026 passed in E-Crl.MP.No.123 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, consequently direct the 1st respondent police to register an FIR on the basis of the petitioners complaint.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.Ponbalaji
for M/s.Pon Law Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
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
The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application, filed under Section 175(3) of the BNSS Act, seeking registration of First Information Report (FIR).
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )
CRL.R.C.No.2101 of 2026
2. The sum and substance of the petitioner's application is that in a civil suit that was pending between the petitioner's husband and the proposed accused, the proposed accused had consented to the decree, by which, the petitioner's husband derived title over the disputed property; that twelve years thereafter, after the death of the petitioner's husband, the proposed accused has executed a sale deed claiming title over the property and therefore, liable to be prosecuted. The Trial Court found that the allegation only discloses a civil dispute.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the conduct of the second respondent has to be investigated and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
4. This Court finds that the gravamen of the allegation is that the proposed accused has violated the decree, to which, he has submitted to in the year 2008 and has executed a sale deed in favour of a third party. The dispute as could be seen is civil in nature and it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the Civil Court. The Trial Court was therefore justified in not directing registration of the FIR. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )
CRL.R.C.No.2101 of 2026
To:
1. The Inspector of Police Palladam Police Station, Palladam, Tiruppur.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )
CRL.R.C.No.2101 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL.R.C.No.2101 of 2026 21-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 01:41:02 pm )