Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.171 of 2026

Radhakrishnan

... Petitioner/Complainant

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Superintendent of Police

Thoothukudi District.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Sathankulam Police Station,

Thoothukudi District.

.... Respondents / Respondents

3. Vignesh

4. Muthuvel

..... Respondents / Accused

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to set aside the docket order of the learned Judicial

Magistrate Court, Sathankulam, dated 20.11.2025 made in

Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2025 and consequently direct the 2

nd

respondent

to comply with the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,

1/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

Sathankulam, dated 01.09.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2025, by

registering a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated

28.11.2022.

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Anand,

For Mr.J.Pooventherarajan

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

Prologue:

The present Criminal Original Petition projects a disturbing

narrative touching upon the sanctity of judicial orders, the limits of

police discretion, and the constitutional imperative underlying the

criminal justice administration. The case at hand is not merely about

a complaint lodged by a finance company against defaulting

borrowers. The larger question which falls for consideration before

this Court is whether a police officer, after having been directed by a

competent Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to register a First Information Report, can

still circumvent such judicial mandate by branding the dispute as

“civil in nature” and thereby render the judicial order otiose.

2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

2. The criminal justice system rests upon institutional

discipline. Once a judicial order directing registration of a case is

passed by a competent Court after satisfaction regarding disclosure

of cognizable offences, the investigative machinery cannot assume

unto itself an appellate jurisdiction over such order. Permitting such

conduct would strike at the very foundation of rule of law.

3. The petitioner seeks interference with the docket order dated

20.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam,

closing the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2025 upon acceptance

of a report submitted by the respondent police stating that the

matter is civil in nature.

Case of the petitioner:

4. The petitioner is the Manager of Dugar Finance Investment

Ltd., Tirunelveli Branch, engaged in financing commercial vehicles.

According to the petitioner, two accused persons, namely Vignesh

and Muthuvel, availed financial assistance from the petitioner

company for purchase of Ashok Leyland tipper lorries bearing

Registration Nos.TN-66-D-9070 and TN-66-D-9072 respectively.

3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the accused persons

executed finance agreements undertaking repayment of the loan

amount in monthly instalments and further agreeing to maintain

statutory compliances such as valid permits, fitness certificates and

insurance coverage for the vehicles. Initially, the instalments were

allegedly paid regularly for certain periods. Thereafter, according to

the petitioner, the accused persons deliberately defaulted in

repayment despite repeated demands.

6. The petitioner would further allege that when the company

representatives approached the accused persons demanding

production of the vehicles for recovery proceedings, the accused

persons refused to produce the vehicles and eventually informed the

petitioner’s employees that the vehicles had already been dismantled

and sold in parts. It is further alleged that threats of criminal

intimidation were also extended against the company personnel.

7. Based on the above allegations, the petitioner lodged a

complaint before the second respondent police on 28.11.2022, which

was assigned CSR No.944 of 2022. Since no FIR was allegedly

4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

registered, the petitioner approached the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Sathankulam, by filing a petition under Section 175(3) of the BNSS

in Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2025.

8. By order dated 01.09.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate

directed the respondent police to register a case, conduct

investigation and file an action taken report within thirty days.

9. According to the petitioner, instead of complying with the

judicial order, the respondent police conducted an informal enquiry

and filed a report before the learned Magistrate stating that the

dispute was civil in nature. The learned Magistrate, by docket order

dated 20.11.2025, accepted the said report and closed the petition.

10. Challenging the said closure order and alleging wilful

disobedience of the earlier judicial direction, the present petition has

been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

Grounds raised by the petitioner:

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

once the learned Magistrate had exercised jurisdiction under Section

175(3) of the BNSS and directed registration of an FIR, the

respondent police had no discretion whatsoever except to comply

with the order. It is contended that the police officer cannot sit in

appeal over the judicial satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate.

12. The learned counsel would further submit that the

allegations contained in the complaint clearly disclose cognizable

offences relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust,

misappropriation of hypothecated property and criminal

intimidation. It is further contended that dismantling and selling

financed vehicles clandestinely during subsistence of finance

agreements constitutes a clear criminal act transcending the realm

of a mere contractual dispute.

13. The petitioner would also allege mala fides and contend

that due to political influence wielded by the accused persons, the

respondent police deliberately avoided registration of the FIR despite

6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

judicial direction. The learned counsel would finally submit that the

docket order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the police

report mechanically, despite an earlier order directing registration of

FIR, is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

14. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that the dispute

essentially arises out of a loan transaction between the finance

company and the borrowers. It is submitted that mere default in

repayment of loan instalments would not automatically constitute

criminal offences. The respondents would contend that the remedy

available to the petitioner is predominantly civil in nature and the

finance company can very well initiate recovery proceedings before

appropriate forums.

15. The learned Government Advocate would further contend

that during enquiry, it was found that no ingredients constituting

cognizable offences were made out and therefore the closure report

was rightly filed. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate,

upon consideration of the report, accepted the same and closed the

7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

proceedings and therefore no interference is warranted under Section

528 of the BNSS.

16. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Points for consideration:

17. In the light of the rival submissions, the following points

arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the respondent police could refuse registration of

FIR after a judicial direction issued under Section 175(3) of the

BNSS?

(ii) Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in accepting

the closure report despite the earlier order directing registration of

FIR?

(iii) Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose

commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation?

8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

Analysis:

18. Section 175(3) of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156(3)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision empowers the

Magistrate to direct registration and investigation where cognizable

offences are disclosed.

19. The very purpose of such provision is to ensure judicial

oversight over police inaction. Once a Magistrate applies judicial

mind and records satisfaction regarding disclosure of cognizable

offences, the police machinery becomes duty bound to obey the

direction.

20. The investigating agency cannot thereafter undertake an

exercise to determine whether the Magistrate’s satisfaction was

correct or otherwise. Such conduct would amount to institutional

indiscipline. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent

police exceeded their jurisdiction in treating the matter as “civil in

nature” after a categorical judicial direction for registration of FIR.

9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

21. The complaint allegations cannot be brushed aside as a

mere loan default dispute. The gravamen of the allegations is not

confined to non-payment of instalments alone. The complaint

specifically alleges that:

(a) the financed vehicles were clandestinely dismantled and

sold in parts;

(b) statutory compliances were intentionally abandoned;

(c) the vehicles were withheld from lawful recovery;

(d) criminal intimidation was extended against the company

personnel.

22. If such allegations are taken at face value, they prima facie

disclose ingredients attracting offences relating to cheating,

dishonest misappropriation, criminal breach of trust and criminal

intimidation. At the stage of registration of FIR, meticulous

appreciation of evidence is impermissible. The test is only whether

the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences

warranting investigation. The respondent police, instead of

registering the FIR and investigating the matter in accordance with

law, prematurely assumed the role of an adjudicatory authority.

10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

23. Equally disturbing is the manner in which the learned

Magistrate accepted the closure report. The docket order dated

20.11.2025 reads thus:

“Objection petition filed by petitioner returned.

Further investigation report filed by police stating that the

case is of civil nature. Hence this petition is closed.”

24. The earlier judicial order directing registration of FIR could

not have been nullified through a summary docket endorsement.

Judicial orders cannot be permitted to evaporate into insignificance

through administrative acceptance of a police report inconsistent

with the very judicial direction earlier issued.

25. Once the Magistrate had directed registration of FIR, the

proper course available to the police was to register the case and

thereafter conduct investigation in accordance with Chapter XIII of

the BNSS.

26. Whether the allegations would ultimately culminate in

filing of final report or closure report is a matter falling within the

investigative domain after registration of FIR and not prior thereto.

11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

The acceptance of the police report by the learned Magistrate,

without ensuring compliance of the earlier judicial direction, suffers

from manifest legal infirmity.

27. The criminal justice administration cannot function in a

manner where subordinate authorities selectively obey judicial

directions. If investigating agencies are permitted to independently

decide whether judicial directions deserve compliance, the authority

of Courts would stand substantially eroded. Judicial orders are not

advisory opinions. They are binding commands enforceable under

constitutional discipline. The rule of law demands institutional

fidelity from every limb of the justice delivery system.

Epilogue:

28. The present case reveals an unfortunate instance where a

judicial direction issued by a competent Magistrate was effectively

neutralised by executive inaction and subsequently reduced into

closure through a cryptic docket endorsement.

12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

29. The administration of criminal justice cannot be allowed to

descend into a situation where judicial mandates become contingent

upon executive convenience. The complaint lodged by the petitioner

undoubtedly requires investigation in the manner known to law.

Whether the allegations would ultimately result in prosecution or

closure is a matter to be determined only after lawful registration

and investigation.

30. This Court is therefore constrained to exercise its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to restore procedural

sanctity and ensure adherence to the rule of law.

31. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on

the following terms:

(i) The docket order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.

117 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, is

hereby set aside.

(ii) The second respondent police is directed to comply with the

earlier order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2025 by

13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

registering an FIR on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint dated

28.11.2022, if not already registered.

(iii) Upon such registration, investigation shall be conducted

strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations

made in this order on the merits of the allegations.

(iv) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,

Sathankulam.

2.The Superintendent of Police

Thoothukudi District.

3. The Inspector of Police,

Sathankulam Police Station,

Thoothukudi District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.171 of 2026

01.06.2026

15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis