CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page1 of 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:

RESERVED ON : 29-06-2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 25.09.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

and

CRL MP Nos.22724 & 2738 of 2025

1.V. Vetri Vendan

2.Banumathi Vezhavendan

3.Ezhil Vendhan

..Petitioners

Vs

1.The Inspector of police,

E-2, Royapettah Police Station.

2.M.Kamaraj

..Respondents

Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of

BNSS, 2023, praying to call for the records in Crl.MP.No.4230 of 2025, on the

file of the Learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,Chennai, and to

set-aside the same, as being illegal and without jurisdiction, and thereby render

justice.

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Hari Krishanan for

Mr.Sharath Chandran.

For Respondent(s):Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, Government Advocate

(Criminal Side) for R1;

Mr.Haja Mohiden Gisthi for R2. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page2 of 34

ORDER

1.The Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the order dated

01.11.2025 passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,

Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 4230 of 2025, whereby the learned Magistrate, in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, directed the jurisdictional police to register a First Information

Report on the complaint lodged by the second respondent and to proceed with

investigation in accordance with law.

2.The facts leading to the present Revision case to the extent necessary

for deciding the controversy are that the petitioners, who are the proposed

accused before the learned Magistrate, seek to assail the aforesaid order

principally on the grounds that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of

landlord-tenant litigation; that the learned Magistrate mechanically exercised

jurisdiction without application of mind; that the second respondent suppressed

material facts; that the mandatory requirements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. were

not complied with; and that the complaint has been instituted only to frustrate

the rent control proceedings pending between the parties.

3.The second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, opposes the

revision contending that the complaint discloses independent cognizable

offences of criminal trespass, theft, mischief, criminal intimidation and unlawful https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page3 of 34

interference with possession committed during the pendency of civil

proceedings; that repeated complaints made before the police authorities yielded

no result; that the learned Magistrate rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C.; while passing the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 and that the

present revision is nothing but an attempt to thwart a lawful criminal

investigation.

4.Learned counsel for the second respondent has filed a detailed counter

affidavit, and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first

respondent has also filed their counter affidavit. This Court, vide order dated

16.06.2026, granted two weeks and no more time to the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavits

filed by the first and second respondents, and fixed the next date on 29.06.2026

for final hearing. When the matter is taken up on 29.06.2026 for final hearing,

the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that he will not file a

rejoinder affidavit and will argue the case on merits on the basis of the

pleadings.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE REVISION PETITIONERS:

5. Learned counsel for the Revision petitioners would submit that the

impugned order is liable to be set aside on numerous grounds. According to the

Petitioners, the dispute between the parties is essentially one of landlord and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page4 of 34

tenant and is already the subject matter of adjudication before the Rent Court in

the Rent proceeding and the Appellate Authority. It is contended that the

complaint is a counterblast to the eviction proceedings and has been instituted

solely with a view to exert pressure upon the petitioners.

6. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to properly

apply his judicial mind before invoking powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.;

that the second respondent suppressed earlier proceedings and material facts;

that the mandatory safeguards governing Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were not

complied with; that there was unexplained delay in lodging the complaint; that

no reliable electronic evidence was produced; and that the learned Magistrate

mechanically accepted the allegations without undertaking the scrutiny

mandated by law.

7. The Revision petitioners would also contend that in view of the

pending civil proceedings and the order of eviction already obtained by the

petitioners, no criminal offence can be said to arise and the entire complaint

constitutes an abuse of the criminal process.

8.Learned counsel would further submit that the second petitioner is the

owner of the property and that the original tenancy was created in favour of one

Mr. M. Azan Feroz under a rental agreement dated 01.03.2016. The second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page5 of 34

respondent, according to the petitioners, had no direct privity of contract with

the second petitioner and came into occupation of a portion of the premises

through the said tenant. After the original tenant was arrested on 27.02.2019, the

rental amounts fell into arrears and the petitioners came to know of the second

respondent’s occupation of the premises.

9.It is submitted that the second petitioner had, as early as on 06.03.2019,

lodged a complaint before the E2 Royapettah Police Station alleging

unauthorised occupation/trespass by the second respondent, pursuant to which

CSR No.101 of 2019 dated 09.03.2019 was issued. Learned counsel would

contend that this material fact, as well as the earlier proceedings between the

parties, was deliberately suppressed by the second respondent while

approaching the learned Magistrate and that such suppression assumes

significance while considering the bona fides of the complaint.

10.Learned counsel would further submit that the second respondent had

already instituted O.S.No.1482 of 2019 before the learned VII Assistant City

Civil Court, Chennai, in respect of the 160 sq.ft. portion of the premises.

Thereafter, the second petitioner initiated RLTOP No.58 of 2020 for eviction,

which culminated in an order dated 11.07.2023 directing the occupants to

vacate the premises. The said proceedings are presently the subject matter of

appeals. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent criminal complaint https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page6 of 34

has been instituted only in the backdrop of the said proceedings and as a means

of exerting pressure upon the petitioners.

11.Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations regarding

vandalisation during November and December 2024 are wholly false and are

not supported by reliable material. It is contended that the second respondent

himself had admitted in his earlier civil proceedings that his alleged occupation

was confined to the shop measuring 160 sq.ft., whereas the total extent of the

two shops is about 350 sq.ft. According to the learned counsel, the alleged video

footage relied upon by the second respondent does not establish that the damage

shown therein relates to the portion actually occupied by him.

12.Learned counsel would further submit that there is a connecting door

between the two shop portions measuring 160 sq.ft. and 190 sq.ft., which fact,

according to the petitioners, was not fairly disclosed before the learned

Magistrate. It is therefore contended that the possibility of the second

respondent himself accessing the other portion and thereafter attributing the

alleged damage to the petitioners could not have been ruled out without proper

investigation and verification. The learned Magistrate, according to the learned

counsel, ought not to have mechanically accepted the allegations and the

disputed electronic material at the threshold. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page7 of 34

13.Learned counsel would further contend that the second respondent

approached the learned Magistrate by suppressing material facts and by placing

misleading material before the Court. It is submitted that a person invoking the

jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is required to approach the Court with

clean hands and disclose all relevant previous proceedings and complaints. The

failure to do so, according to the learned counsel, vitiates the exercise of

jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate.

14.Learned counsel would therefore submit that, in the backdrop of the

pending civil and rent proceedings, the eviction order already obtained by the

petitioners, the earlier police complaint, the suppression of material facts, the

doubtful electronic evidence and the unexplained delay, the complaint is

nothing but an abuse of the criminal process. It is contended that the impugned

order suffers from non-application of mind and failure to consider the relevant

circumstances and, consequently, the same is liable to be set aside.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit

that the entire Criminal Revision is fundamentally misconceived and proceeds

on a complete misunderstanding of the scope of revisional jurisdiction under

Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the nature of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page8 of 34

the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3)

Cr.P.C. According to the Second Respondent, the learned Magistrate has neither

adjudicated upon the rights of the parties nor recorded any finding regarding the

guilt of the petitioners. The impugned order merely directs the registration of a

First Information Report upon recording prima facie satisfaction that the

complaint discloses cognizable offences. Such an order merely sets the criminal

law in motion and therefore cannot be interfered with merely because the

proposed accused dispute the allegations contained in the complaint.

16.Learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that

the attempt of the petitioners is nothing short of inviting this Court to undertake

a meticulous examination of disputed questions of fact at a stage anterior to

investigation itself. According to the second respondent, every contention urged

in the revision pertains to matters of defence, appreciation of evidence,

admissibility of electronic material, rival claims regarding possession and

disputed questions relating to landlord-tenant relationship, all of which fall

exclusively within the domain of investigation and, if necessary, trial. None of

those issues, it is contended, can legitimately form the subject matter of

revisional scrutiny against an order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

17.Learned counsel for the second respondent further submits that the

second respondent constituted a partnership firm during October 2016 under the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page9 of 34

name and style "Brunch Chat & Juices" for carrying on the business of chats,

sandwiches and beverages. Initially the business was conducted at

Gopalapuram. Subsequently, the business shifted to the premises situated at

No.78/103, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai. The materials

available on record disclose that the firm obtained registration under the Income

Tax Act and the Goods and Services Tax enactments. The trade name was also

sought to be registered under the Trade Marks Act.

18.Learned counsel for the second respondent further submits that the

records further disclose that the premises in question originally stood leased in

favour of one of the partners and thereafter continued under a duly reconstituted

partnership. It is the consistent case of the second respondent that the landlady,

namely the second petitioner herein, was fully aware of the occupation of the

premises by the partnership firm and had acquiesced in the same for several

years. The electricity service connection admittedly continued in the name of

the landlady while the electricity consumption charges were continuously paid

by the second respondent. Rent also came to be paid for several years.

19.Learned counsel for the second respondent further submits that the

second petitioner instituted proceedings before the Rent Court in rent control

proceeding bearing R.L.T.O.P. No. 58 of 2020 seeking eviction and recovery of

arrears of rent. The Rent Court partly allowed the petition by granting eviction https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page10 of 34

while rejecting the claim for arrears. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent

preferred R.L.T.A. No. 216 of 2023 and the landlady also preferred R.L.T.A.

No.: 39 of 2024. Both appeals are admittedly pending before the competent

Court.

20.Learned counsel for the second respondent further submits that even

prior to the institution of the rent control proceedings, apprehending forcible

dispossession otherwise than by due process of law, the second respondent

instituted O.S. No.: 1482 of 2019 seeking permanent injunction. The Civil

Court granted a decree restraining interference with the respondent's possession

except by due process of law.

21.According to the learned counsel for the second respondent,

notwithstanding the pendency of the civil proceedings and despite the injunction

decree, the petitioners and their associates repeatedly attempted to interfere with

the second respondent's possession and business operations. It is alleged that

during November and December 2024 the petitioners, accompanied by several

unidentified persons, forcibly entered the shop premises, broke open the locks,

vandalised the interiors, removed freezer units, furniture and business articles

worth approximately Rs.15,00,000/- and criminally intimidated the respondent

with a view to compelling him to vacate the premises without recourse to law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page11 of 34

22.Learned counsel for the second respondent would further state that

these incidents were captured through CCTV cameras installed in the premises

and that several complaints were immediately lodged before the jurisdictional

police. Complaint reference numbers were generated. Despite repeated

complaints and representations to superior police authorities, the police failed to

register any FIR, taking the stand that the dispute between the parties was civil

in nature.

23.Developing the submissions further, learned counsel for the second

respondent would contend that the respondent has been carrying on business

from the premises continuously from the year 2016 with the full knowledge,

consent and acquiescence of the second petitioner. The respondent's possession

has never been clandestine. Rent was accepted. Electricity charges were

continuously paid. The business establishment possesses statutory registrations

including GST registration, PAN registration and other licences. The respondent

had invested substantial sums in establishing the business. More importantly,

the respondent had already obtained a decree of permanent injunction protecting

his possession except through due process of law. Therefore, according to the

learned Counsel, the present complaint cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be

dismissed as frivolous or invented. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page12 of 34

24.Learned counsel for the second respondent would next submit that the

complaint specifically alleges repeated acts of criminal trespass, vandalism,

theft, criminal intimidation and forcible interference with possession during

November and December 2024. Those allegations disclose independent penal

offences wholly distinct from the civil proceedings pending between the parties.

Merely because eviction proceedings are pending or an order of eviction has

been passed, no landlord acquires a licence to commit criminal offences or

resort to self-help. It is submitted that the existence of civil proceedings neither

obliterates nor eclipses criminal liability where the allegations independently

satisfy the ingredients of cognizable offences.

25.Learned counsel for the second respondent would also draw the

attention of the Court to the repeated complaints lodged before the jurisdictional

police and the superior police authorities. It is submitted that despite multiple

complaints and despite the respondent having exhausted the statutory remedies

contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the police failed to discharge their

statutory obligation of registering the First Information Report. It was only after

complete police inaction that the respondent approached the learned Magistrate

invoking the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, according to

the second respondent, the learned Magistrate merely corrected the illegality

committed by the police and directed compliance with the statutory mandate. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page13 of 34

26.Learned counsel for the second respondent, addressing the controversy

regarding the CCTV footage, the second respondent would submit that the

petitioners have deliberately misled this Court by suggesting that no electronic

evidence was ever produced before the learned Magistrate. On the contrary, the

learned Magistrate himself has specifically recorded in the impugned order that

the CCTV footage disclosed a prima facie case of trespass. Therefore, the

submission that the pen drive had never been produced is demonstrably contrary

to the judicial record itself. It is further submitted that even assuming for the

sake of argument that the pen drive had not been annexed to the affidavit, such

an omission would be wholly inconsequential because proceedings under

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are not intended to evaluate evidence but merely to

determine whether the complaint discloses cognizable offences warranting

investigation.

27.Learned counsel for the second respondent further submits that the

revision is nothing but a disguised petition seeking quashing of criminal

proceedings at the pre-investigation stage. The petitioners seek appreciation of

evidence, determination of rival claims, adjudication upon civil rights and

evaluation of disputed facts even before the investigating agency has

commenced investigation. Such an exercise, according to the second

respondent, is wholly impermissible and therefore the revision deserves https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page14 of 34

dismissal.

28.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

first respondent also concurs with the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the second respondent and submits that the impugned order dated

01.11.2025 passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,

Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.4230 of 2025, is a well-reasoned and speaking order.

He therefore submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise

of its revisional jurisdiction and that the present Criminal Revision Case is

liable to be dismissed.

29.This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent, as

well as the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) appearing for the first respondent, and perused the materials available on

record.

DISCUSSION

30.The challenge mounted by the revision petitioners proceeds upon a

fundamental misconception regarding the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by

the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal

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

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page15 of 34

31.Section 156 occurs in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. dealing with information

to the police and the powers of investigation. The jurisdiction conferred upon

the Magistrate under sub-section (3) is neither adjudicatory nor determinative.

The Magistrate does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations. Equally,

the Magistrate does not pronounce upon the civil rights of parties nor determine

the criminal liability of the proposed accused. The statutory function discharged

by the Magistrate is confined to examining whether the complaint, read as a

whole, discloses the commission of cognizable offences requiring police

investigation.

32.The distinction between proceedings under Section 156(3) and

proceedings under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is fundamental and cannot be

overlooked. Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate merely decides

whether police investigation should commence. Under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the

Magistrate embarks upon an enquiry with a view to taking cognizance. The

degree of scrutiny required under the two provisions is therefore entirely

different. The petitioners, however, invite this Court to import into Section 156

(3) Cr.P.C. the standards applicable to enquiries under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and

even to a full-fledged criminal trial. Such an approach is wholly inconsistent

with the statutory framework. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page16 of 34

33.The consistent judicial view has been that the Magistrate, while

exercising powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., is not expected to appreciate

evidence, determine admissibility of documents, reconcile rival factual versions

or examine the probable defence of the proposed accused. Those are matters

falling squarely within the province of investigation and, if necessary, trial. The

Magistrate is only required to satisfy himself that the complaint discloses

cognizable offences and that police investigation is necessary. It is in the above

legal backdrop that the impugned order requires examination.

34.The order impugned in the present revision merely directs the

jurisdictional police to register a First Information Report and investigate the

complaint. Such an order neither determines the civil rights of the parties nor

adjudicates upon the criminal liability of the petitioners. No finding has been

rendered regarding the truth or otherwise of the allegations. No cognizance has

been taken against the petitioners. No summons have been issued. No process

has been initiated against them. The order merely activates the statutory

machinery of investigation. The petitioners therefore seek to challenge not a

finding of guilt but the very commencement of investigation. The distinction is

significant because investigation is the statutory function entrusted to the police

and not to the Court. Interference at such a nascent stage must necessarily

remain an exception rather than the rule. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page17 of 34

35.A careful reading of the revision petition reveals that almost every

ground urged by the petitioners requires this Hon'ble Court to evaluate disputed

questions of fact. The petitioners invite this Hon'ble Court to determine whether

the second respondent is a lawful tenant, whether the respondent suffered the

alleged loss, whether the CCTV footage is genuine, whether the complaint has

been exaggerated, whether the second respondent himself caused the damage,

whether the allegations are probable, whether the petitioners acted lawfully

pursuant to eviction proceedings and whether the complaint constitutes a

counterblast to civil litigation. Each one of these issues necessarily requires

investigation, collection of evidence, examination of witnesses, seizure of

materials, forensic analysis and appreciation of evidence. None of them can

legitimately be decided while examining the correctness of an order passed

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Acceptance of the petitioners' contention would

amount to converting revisional proceedings into a full-fledged trial, thereby

rendering the statutory scheme under Chapter XII of the Code otiose.

36.The Court should also not accept the submission that the learned

Magistrate was required to undertake an elaborate enquiry before directing

investigation. The legislative purpose behind Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is to

ensure that where the police fail to discharge their statutory obligation to

investigate cognizable offences, the Magistrate may require them to do so. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page18 of 34

satisfaction contemplated under the provision is only a prima facie satisfaction

based upon the allegations contained in the complaint and the accompanying

materials. The Learned Magistrate is not expected to pronounce upon the

reliability of witnesses, weigh competing probabilities or finally determine

disputed rights. Those functions commence only after investigation has yielded

material capable of judicial scrutiny.

37.The learned Magistrate neither exceeded the jurisdiction vested under

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. nor exercised the same arbitrarily. On the contrary, the

learned Magistrate discharged the statutory duty cast upon him after finding that

the complaint disclosed cognizable offences and that police intervention had

become necessary in view of the repeated inaction of the jurisdictional police.

The order does not suffer from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional infirmity

warranting interference under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

38.Coming to the next contention raised by the Petitioner is that the

dispute between the parties arises out of a landlord-tenant relationship and is

already the subject matter of adjudication before the Rent Court and the

Appellate Authority. It is therefore contended that the criminal complaint is

merely a counterblast to the civil proceedings and consequently no criminal

investigation should be permitted to proceed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page19 of 34

39.The submission, though attractively presented, overlooks a settled

principle that the existence of civil proceedings does not create an embargo

upon the operation of criminal law where the allegations independently disclose

the commission of cognizable offences. The true test is not whether civil

proceedings exist, but whether the ingredients of penal offences are prima facie

made out. If the allegations disclose criminal trespass, theft, mischief, criminal

intimidation or any other cognizable offence, the investigating agency is under a

statutory obligation to investigate irrespective of the pendency of civil litigation.

Civil liability and criminal liability operate in distinct fields. The existence of

one does not necessarily exclude the other.

40.In the present case, the complaint does not merely allege breach

of contractual obligations or wrongful termination of tenancy. The second

respondent alleges that during the pendency of the rent control proceedings the

petitioners, accompanied by several persons, forcibly entered the premises,

broke open locks, vandalised the business establishment, removed business

articles worth approximately Rs. 15,00,000/- and intimidated the respondent.

Such allegations, if accepted at face value for the limited purpose of Section 156

(3) Cr.P.C., unquestionably disclose offences known to criminal law. Whether

those allegations are ultimately established is a matter for investigation.

However, the existence of rent control proceedings cannot furnish a legal shield https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page20 of 34

against investigation into such allegations.

41.The materials also indicate that the second respondent had obtained a

decree of permanent injunction protecting possession except by due process of

law. The existence of such a decree assumes significance because the complaint

is not merely that the petitioners sought possession, but that they allegedly

resorted to self-help notwithstanding the subsisting decree. Whether the decree

was subsequently affected by subsequent proceedings, and what legal

consequences flow therefrom, are all matters beyond the scope of the present

revision. Nevertheless, the decree lends contextual support to the second

respondent's assertion that the alleged acts of force were not isolated events but

part of a continuing dispute concerning possession. This aspect further

reinforces the necessity of investigation rather than militating against it.

42.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rocky vs State of Telangana

& Anr. [2025 INSC 1384) vide order dated 04.12.2025 was pleased to observe

as under:

"24. The appellant's core contention, that the dispute is

purely civil in nature, is untenable at this stage. Although

courts must guard against giving criminal colour to civil

disputes, it is equally well settled that the existence of civil

remedies does not preclude criminal prosecution where the

allegations disclose the essential ingredients of an offence. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page21 of 34

Civil and criminal proceedings may validly coexist if the

factual matrix supports both."

43.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.S. Prasad vs C.Satyakumar

& Anr. (2026 INSC 39) vide order dated 08.01.2026 was pleased to observe as

under:

“26. In the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the

proceedings primarily on the ground that the validity of the

settlement deeds has been upheld in the proceedings before the

Civil Court. We are of the view that this approach adopted by the

High Court is not correct. It is a settled principle of criminal

jurisprudence that civil liability and criminal liability may arise

from the same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of

civil proceedings does not bar prosecution where the ingredients

of a criminal offence are disclosed. In Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S.

Reddy and Others, this Court had made it crystal clear that

"pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter,

involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal

proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused

persons.”

27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal prosecution proceed

on different principles. The decree passed by the Civil Court

neither records findings on criminal intent nor on the existence of

offences such as forgery, cheating, or use of forged documents.

Therefore, civil adjudication cannot always be treated as

determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of quashment.

Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil proceedings have not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page22 of 34

attained finality.

28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents

in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element.

Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition that whenever

dispute involves a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go

on. Criminal liability must be examined independently.”

44.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nazibul Rahim Khan & Ors.

Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026 INSC 619] vide order dated

25.03.2026 was pleased to observe as under:

"23....At this juncture, it is important to indicate that it is no

longer res integra that upon the same cause of action and based

on the same set of facts/circumstances, both civil and criminal

proceedings can be maintainable [refer S N Vijayalakshmi v

State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575 @Paragraph

42]."

45.Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Accama Sam

Jacob us the State of Karnataka & Anr. (2026 SCC OnLine 585) vide order

dated 13.04.2026 was pleased to observe as under:

"56. In the facts and circumstances noted above, it was not at all

justified for the High Court to have quashed proceedings merely

on the ground that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature. It is

well settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page23 of 34

itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie

disclose commission of a cognizable offence. By entering into an

evaluation of the dispute on merits and proceeding to quash the

order directing investigation, the High Court effectively stifled the

investigative process at its inception. Such an approach runs

contrary to the principles consistently laid down by this Court."

46.It is an unacceptable broad proposition advanced by the petitioners

that every dispute arising between a landlord and tenant is necessarily immune

from criminal investigation. Acceptance of such an argument would amount to

conferring an unwarranted immunity upon parties to civil litigation and would

permit criminal acts committed during the pendency of such litigation to escape

investigation merely because a civil remedy also exists. Such a consequence

would be contrary to both principle and public policy.

47.Having held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not constitute

a legal embargo upon criminal investigation, the next question that falls for

consideration is whether the complaint, when read as a whole and without

embarking upon an appreciation of its truthfulness, discloses the commission of

cognizable offences warranting investigation under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C..

48.At the outset, it requires to be emphasised that at the stage of directing

investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Court is not expected to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page24 of 34

meticulously dissect the complaint sentence by sentence with a view to

ascertain whether every allegation would ultimately culminate in conviction.

Such an exercise belongs exclusively to the stage of trial. The complaint has to

be read as a whole, in a commonsense and pragmatic manner, without either

magnifying insignificant discrepancies or importing technicalities which are

wholly alien to the stage of commencement of investigation.

49.Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. states:

"156(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an

investigation as abovementioned."

The words "as abovementioned" obviously refer to Section 156 (1), which

contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of

the Police Station."

50.Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. provides for a check by the Magistrate on the

police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the

Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at

all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do

the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.

51.The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an independent power, and does not affect the power https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page25 of 34

of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission

of his report vide Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. Hence the Magistrate can order re-

opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide

State of Bihar v. A.C. Saldanna, (1980) 1 SCC 554 (SCC: para 19).

52.In my opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all

such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper

investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of

ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper

investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section

156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in my opinion, is very wide and it will

include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a investigation.

proper

53.It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do

something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the

proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted

by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special

mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the

grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also

grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially

necessary to its execution. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page26 of 34

54.As I have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide

powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and

for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation

is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself).

55.A careful reading of the complaint in the present case unmistakably

discloses that the respondent has not merely alleged breach of contractual

obligations or violation of tenancy rights. The allegations are far more serious in

nature. The second respondent has specifically alleged that the petitioners,

acting in concert with several unidentified persons, entered the business

premises without authority, broke open the locks, dismantled and destroyed the

interiors of the establishment, removed freezer units, furniture, commercial

equipment and other movables worth approximately Rs.15,00,000/-, interfered

with the respondent's peaceful possession and business operations and

criminally intimidated him with the object of compelling him to vacate the

premises. The complaint further refers to repeated acts of interference during

the pendency of the rent control proceedings and states that the entire

occurrence was captured by CCTV cameras installed in the premises.

56.The allegations are not bereft of particulars. Dates have been

furnished. The nature of the occurrence has been described. The identity of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page27 of 34

principal participants has been disclosed. The value of the articles allegedly

removed has been indicated. The second respondent has also disclosed the

immediate steps taken by him after the occurrence, namely, lodging complaints

before the police authorities and approaching superior police officers. The

complaint is therefore neither vague nor omnibus. It contains sufficient factual

particulars to justify commencement of investigation.

57.The petitioners would contend that the allegations are false,

exaggerated and engineered solely to counter the eviction proceedings. Such a

contention undoubtedly constitutes a defence available to the petitioners.

However, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be adjudicated

by this Court at the stage of revision. The very purpose of investigation is to

ascertain whether the allegations are true, partly true or wholly false. If this

Court were to undertake that exercise at this stage, the statutory role assigned to

the investigating agency would stand completely displaced.

58.Therefore, the complaint, taken at its face value, clearly discloses the

commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. Consequently, the

learned Magistrate cannot be faulted for directing registration of the First

Information Report. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page28 of 34

59.The petitioners have next contended that the respondent directly

invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate without exhausting the

statutory remedies contemplated under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and therefore the

petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was itself not maintainable.

60.The records placed before the learned Magistrate disclose that the

second respondent did not rush to Court immediately after the alleged

occurrence. On the contrary, he repeatedly approached the jurisdictional police

by lodging complaints on several dates. Complaint reference numbers were

generated. Thereafter, representations were also submitted to the superior police

authorities complaining about the failure of the Station House Officer to register

a First Information Report. The second respondent continued to pursue his

remedies before the police machinery. Despite repeated representations and

despite allegations disclosing cognizable offences, no FIR came to be

registered.

61.The conduct of the second respondent demonstrates that invocation of

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was not the first remedy but the last remedy. It was only

after exhausting the statutory mechanism under Section 154 Cr.P.C and after

encountering complete police inaction that the second respondent approached

the learned Magistrate. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page29 of 34

62.More importantly, the present case demonstrates precisely why

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in the Code. The provision acts

as a judicial safeguard against arbitrary police inaction. Where the police refuse

to investigate cognizable offences on untenable grounds, the Magistrate is

empowered to require them to perform their statutory duty. The learned

Magistrate, in the present case, merely exercised that supervisory jurisdiction.

Far from committing any illegality, the learned Magistrate ensured compliance

with the statutory scheme of criminal investigation. The objection raised by the

petitioners on this score is therefore devoid of merit.

63.A considerable portion of the arguments advanced on behalf of the

petitioners centred around the alleged non-production of the pen drive

containing the CCTV footage before the learned Magistrate. Since this aspect

weighed with the grant of interim protection, it is only fit that the second

Respondent clarifies the same.

64.The argument of the petitioners proceeds on two assumptions. Firstly,

that the CCTV footage was never produced before the learned Magistrate.

Secondly, that the alleged omission is sufficient to invalidate the order passed

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page30 of 34

65.The second respondent has also filed a typed set of papers along with

the counter affidavit. The second respondent has brought the attention of this

Court to the list of documents annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the

petition under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. From the same,

it is manifest that the CCTV footage has been filed in a pen drive as a part and

parcel of the petition along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian

Evidence Act 1872. Furthermore, the impugned order passed by the learned

Magistrate itself records that the video footage produced before the Court

disclosed a prima facie case of trespass. Such a judicial recording necessarily

presupposes that the electronic material was available before the Court and had

been looked into by the learned Magistrate. The contention that the Magistrate

never had the benefit of examining the CCTV footage is therefore contrary to

the judicial record itself.

66.Even assuming for the sake of argument that the electronic material

had not been physically annexed to the affidavit, it is incomprehensible as to

how such an omission would vitiate proceedings under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

The jurisdiction exercised under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C is neither evidentiary

nor adjudicatory. The Magistrate is not expected to decide whether the CCTV

footage is genuine, admissible or sufficient to establish guilt. Questions relating

to authenticity, forensic examination, admissibility and evidentiary value of

electronic records are matters falling squarely within the domain of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page31 of 34

investigation and, thereafter, trial. At the pre-investigation stage, the Magistrate

is only required to satisfy himself that the complaint discloses cognizable

offences requiring police investigation.

67.To insist that the Magistrate should undertake a detailed evaluation of

electronic evidence before directing registration of FIR would amount to

converting proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C into an enquiry under

Section 200 Cr.P.C or even a full-fledged trial. Such an interpretation would

completely defeat the legislative purpose underlying Chapter XII of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

68.Therefore, the controversy sought to be raised regarding the pen drive

is wholly misplaced and legally inconsequential. The issue has been

disproportionately magnified by the petitioners in an attempt to divert attention

from the core issue, namely, whether the complaint discloses cognizable

offences.

69.Furthermore, a revisional Court is not expected to substitute

investigation with judicial speculation. Criminal law proceeds upon the

foundational principle that facts must first be investigated before they are

adjudicated. Acceptance of the petitioners' submissions would result in the

anomalous situation where investigation itself is rendered unnecessary because https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page32 of 34

the proposed accused dispute the allegations. Such an interpretation would

strike at the very root of the statutory scheme governing investigation into

cognizable offences.

70.Accordingly, this Court ought to hold that the various grounds urged

in the revision petition constitute matters of defence which are required to be

examined by the investigating agency during investigation and, if necessary, by

the jurisdictional Court during trial, and not by this Court while exercising

revisional jurisdiction over an order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

71.Having made submissions with regard to the legal principles

governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure as well as the limited scope of interference in revisional

jurisdiction, this Court ought to be satisfied that the learned XVIII Metropolitan

Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction strictly in accordance with law. The

complaint discloses specific allegations constituting cognizable offences. The

second respondent exhausted the statutory remedies before the police

authorities. The learned Magistrate applied his judicial mind and recorded prima

facie satisfaction. The petitioners seek, in substance, an adjudication upon

disputed questions of fact before investigation has even commenced. Such an

exercise is wholly impermissible. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page33 of 34

72.In view of the observation and discussion made above and also in view

of the judgement referred to above, the impugned order neither suffers from

perversity nor from jurisdictional error warranting interference under Sections

397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by this Court exercising revisional power of this Court.

Thus, this criminal revision case lacks merit and accordingly is liable to be

dismissed.

73.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The order

dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Saidapet, Chennai, in Cri.M.P. No.4230 of 2025 is affirmed and the Inspector of

Police, E-2 Royapettah Police Station is directed to register a First Information

Report on the complaint dated 22.11.2024 of the second respondent and proceed

with the investigation strictly in accordance with law. However, there shall be

no orders as to costs.

25-09-2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

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

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

__________

Page34 of 34

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

SHA

To

1.The Inspector of police, E-2, Royapettah Police Station.

2.Learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

CRL RC No. 2579 of 2025

25-09-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis