CRL RC(MD)/1376/2026 of V.Gurusamy Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police on 12 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 29.04.2026 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’, dismissing the protest petition in Cr MP No.2535/2023 filed by him, the revision petitioner/de facto complainant 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 respondent, in Cr No.217/2015 on the file of Vasudevanallur Police Station, had filed ‘negative police report’ dropping the case as ‘mistake of fact’, that challenging such negative police report, the revision petitioner being the de facto complainant had filed a protest petition in Cr MP No.2535/2023 and that the trial court, after due consideration, has rejected such negative police report and treated such protest petition as a private complaint under S.200 CrPC directing the revision petitioner to appear for examination on oath.

06. Challenging the order of the trial court treating his protest petition as a private complaint under S.200 CrPC, 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 the trial court ought to have taken direct cognizance under S.190(1)(b) CrPC, that the trial court, when it holds that prima facie material exists on record, ought not to have treated the protest petition as a private complaint under S.200 CrPC, that the trial court, if it finds that the investigation is defective or incomplete, ought to have ordered for further investigation instead of treating the protest petition as a private complaint under S.200 CrPC, that the trial court has failed to consider the pendency for 11 years 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 respondent would submit that the trial court has rightly treated the protest petition of the revision petitioner as a private complaint under S.200 CrPC, that the trial court cannot take direct cognizance under S.190(1)(b) CrPC in the given case, that therefore, the impugned order of the trial court does not suffer any sort of illegality or infirmity warranting the interference of this court and that therefore, the criminal revision petition deserves for dismissal.

10. Short question is whether a Magistrate, when a negative police report is filed, can be compelled or directed to take direct cognizance as under S.190(1)(b) CrPC on the protest petition filed by the de facto complainant challenging such negative police report?

11. It would be appropriate to refer to S.190(1) CrPC which would read as under:

190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence –

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

12. It would also be appropriate to refer to the prayer in this criminal revision which would read as under (extracted as such): ‘this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the Order dated 29.04.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2535 in Crime No.217 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri and set aside the same to the extent that it directs the treatment of the Protest Petition as a Private Complaint under S.200 CrPC and orders the examination of the complainant on oath, consequently direct the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, to take direct Cognizance of the offences under S.190(1)(b) CrPC on the basis of the existing prima facie materials, civil court decrees, and police records, and issue summons directly to all accused persons and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and thus render justice.’

13. At the cost of repetition, here is a case where the trial court having dissatisfied with the negative police report has rejected such negative police report and treated the protest petition filed by the revision petitioner/de facto complainant as a complaint under S.200 CrPC.

14. It is trite that when the investigating police officer files a ‘negative police report’ against the de facto complainant, the competent Magistrate has four options,

(1) he may accept such police report and drop further proceedings, or

(2) he may order for further investigation if he is of the opinion that the investigation is not proper but perfunctory, or

(3) he may, of course, take ‘direct cognizance’ as under S.190(1)

(b) CrPC if he is satisfied with the materials on record that there is sufficient ground to take such ‘direct cognizance’, or

(4) he may proceed to act under S.200 and S.202 CrPC r/w S.190(1)(a) CrPC upon the original complaint or by treating the protest petition, if any, as a complaint under S.190(1)(a).

15. In this case on hand, the learned Magistrate of the trial court has elected the fourth option by treating the protest petition as a complaint under S.200 and S.202 CrPC r/w S.190(1)(a) CrPC.

16. Finding fault with the learned Magistrate of the trial court electing the fourth option to proceed under S.200 and S.202 CrPC r/w S.190(1)(a) CrPC, the revision petitioner, in this revision petition, has required this court to direct the learned Magistrate of the trial court to elect the third option and thereby to proceed under S.190(1)(b) CrPC by taking ‘direct cognizance’.

17. Now, the question is whether a Magistrate, who has elected one of such four options and taken proceedings accordingly, can be directed or compelled to elect other option and thereby to proceed under that other option? In other words, the learned Magistrate of the trial court, who has treated the protest petition as a complaint under S.200 and S.202 CrPC r/w S.190(1)(a) CrPC and taken further proceedings accordingly, can be directed or compelled to take ‘direct cognizance’ as under S.190(1)(b) CrPC, the third option?

18. In this regard, this court would like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari V State of Uttar Pradesh ((2019) 8 SCC 27) and the relevant excerpts would read as under: ‘41. In the facts of this case, having regard to the nature of the allegations contained in the protest petition and the annexures which essentially consisted of affidavits, if the Magistrate was convinced on the basis of the consideration of the final report, the statements under Section 161 of the Code that no prima facie case is made out, certainly the Magistrate could not be compelled to take cognizance by treating the protest petition as a complaint. The fact that he may have jurisdiction in a case to treat the protest petition as a complaint is a different matter. Undoubtedly, if he treats the protest petition as a complaint, he would have to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 200 and 202 of the Code if the latter Section also commends itself to the Magistrate. In other words, necessarily, the complainant and his witnesses would have to be examined. No doubt, depending upon the material which is made available to a Magistrate by the complainant in the protest petition, it may be capable of being relied on in a particular case having regard to its inherent nature and impact on the conclusions in the final report. That is, if the material is such that it persuades the court to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer, cognizance could be taken under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code for which there is no necessity to examine the witnesses under Section 200 of the Code. But as the Magistrate could not be compelled to treat the protest petition as a complaint, the remedy of the complainant would be to file a fresh complaint and invite the Magistrate to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Code or Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code.’ (italics supplied by this court).

19. Pertinently, this court would like to point out that the revision petitioner, by making serious allegations against the investigating police officer who filed such negative police report, has claimed that the investigation has been derailed, that the investigation is defective and that the police report and other materials culminating from such defective investigation is also defective and incomplete.

20. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate of the trial court, in the considered view of this court, cannot be compelled or directed to take ‘direct cognizance’ as under S.190(1)(b) CrPC on the presupposition that there are sufficient materials bringing prima facie case for taking such direct cognizance.

21. Resultantly, this court holds that the revision petitioner is not entitled to get an order allowing this criminal revision and setting aside the impugned order of the trial court.

22. In fine, this criminal revision shall stand dismissed, upholding the order of the trial court in Crl MP No.2535/2023 in Cr No.217/2015 on the file of Vasudevanallur Police Station.

23. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 12.11.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No gns

To

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Puliyangakudi, Thenkasi District. Vasudevnallur Police Station,

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

B.MURUGESAN, J. gns Order made in CRL.RC.(MD)No.1376 of 2026 12.11.2026