Madras High Court
CRL RC/2111/2026 of Vijayashamundeeswari Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police on 21 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2111 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012153602026}
Vijayashamundeeswari
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Mambalam Circle, Mambalam, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police
R1-Mambalam Police Station,
T.Nagar,Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Revision filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of the BNSS Act, to set aside the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2431 of 2026, dated 13-8-2026, by the Learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Govindaraju
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor
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 seeking registration of First Information Report (FIR) under Section 175(3) of the BNSS Act.
2. The gist of the allegation of the petitioner is that the accused trespassed into her house and committed offence of criminal trespass, criminal intimidation, which are cognizable offences. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that the complaint is an after-thought and the proposed accused had already lodged a complaint, which was registered by the respondent in Crime No.101/2026 under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS Act, alleging that the petitioner’s son had recorded certain videos intruding into privacy of women; that when they questioned the petitioner, the petitioner and one Jagadish warned them of severe action and also threatened them of dire consequences.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however would submit that the complaint of the proposed accused is false; that the proposed accused were the aggressors and in fact, the occurrence took place in Mambalam, whereas their FIR was registered at Saidapet; that though the petitioner attempted to lodge a complaint at Mambalam Police Station, the complaint was not taken on file and hence, the impugned order has to be set aside.
4. Admittedly, there is no record to show that the petitioner has lodged a complaint immediately after the occurrence. The complaint referred to by the petitioner is dated 14.04.2026 and it has been sent by Registered Letter to the Assistant Commissioner, Mambalam Division. There is no other record to show that the petitioner has lodged any complaint immediately after the occurrence.
5. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate is right in holding that the complaint is only an after-thought and is counterblast to the already lodged FIR on the complaint given by the proposed accused. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order impugned. However, if the petitioner so deems fit, she is at liberty to file a private complaint. It is for the learned Magistrate to consider that complaint on merits and in accordance with law. The Criminal Revision Case, accordingly, stands dismissed. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm) To:
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Mambalam Circle, Mambalam, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police R1-Mambalam Police Station, T.Nagar,Chennai.
3. The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
SUNDER MOHAN, J. DRM CRL.R.C.No.2111 of 2026 21-09-2026