CRL RC(MD)/1763/2026 of Selvavelan Vs Ramanathan on 11 November 2026

ORDER

Heard and admitted.

02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was taken up for final hearing.

03. Challenging the order dated 14.08.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate II (FAC), Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’, dismissing the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the revision petitioner under S.175(3) BNSS in Crl MP No.28/2026, the revision petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.

04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent', unless the context otherwise requires.

05. Prefatory facts are that the revision petitioner, before the trial court, has filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under S.175(3) BNSS in Crl MP No.28/2026 requiring the trial court ‘to register a case against the revision respondents 1 and 2 under S.296(b), S.115(2), S.118(2), S.351(3) BNS and S.4 TNPHW Act,’ and that the trial court, after enquiry, has dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.28/2026 on the grounds (a) that the revision petitioner did not lodge any complaint before Devipattinam Police Station being the jurisdictional police station, and (b) that the revision petitioner did not file any document to show he has sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

06. Challenging such dismissal of the trial court, the revision petitioner has filed this criminal revision.

07. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.

08. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that even though the revision petitioner has filed a copy of the complaint given to Devipattinam Police Station and also a copy of the complaint sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, the trial court has erroneously held the revision petitioner has not filed such copies and that therefore, the impugned order of the trial court is erroneous and perverse, liable to be interfered with.

09. Learned counsel for State of TN(Crl.side) appearing for the revision respondents 3 and 4 would fairly concede that the revision petitioner has filed such copies as required by the trial court, along with the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.28/2026.

10. Point for determination is whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get an order, allowing this criminal revision, setting aside the impugned order of the trial court and granting any other suitable directions?

11. Reasons stated by the trial court for dismissing the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.28/2026 are (a) that the revision petitioner did not lodge any complaint before Devipattinam Police Station, and (b) that the revision petitioner did not file any document to show he has sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

12. It is unfortunate to note that even though the trial court, in the list of documents in its order, has shown (1) the copy of the complaint lodged by the revision petitioner with Devipattinam Police Station, (2) the copy of the complaint sent by the revision petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, through registered post and (3) the copy of a medical certificate, as the documents relied on by the revision petitioner, the trial court has simply dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.28/2026 with the findings that the revision petitioner did not lodge any complaint before Devipattinam Police Station and that the revision petitioner did not file any document to show he has sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

13. Therefore, it is clear that the trial court has passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind and that therefore, the impugned order of the trial court is erroneous and perverse.

14. Before parting with, this court would like to point out that since the revision petitioner, in his complaint/representation sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, through registered post, has referred to his earlier complaint given to the jurisdictional police station, proof for ‘lodging’ such complaint with the jurisdictional police station need not necessarily be required.

15. Resultantly, this court holds that the revision petitioner is entitled to get an order, allowing this criminal revision, setting aside the impugned order of the trial court and granting direction in such terms as detailed hereunder, and this point is answered, accordingly.

16. In fine, this criminal revision shall stand allowed, (a) setting aside the impugned order of the trial court, (b) remanding the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.28/2026 to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law, and

(c) directing the trial court to complete the aforesaid exercise within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GNS

To

1. The Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Court No.II), Ramanathapuram

2. The Inspector Of Police, Devipattinam Police Station Ramanathapuram District

3. The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

B.MURUGESAN, J. GNS CRL RC(MD) No. 1763 of 2026 11-11-2026