High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RERSERVED ON : 29.08.2025PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCrl.R.C.No.885 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.No.12042 of 2025N.Nishar Ahmad... PetitionerVs.1.V.Anusha, Advocate, S-6, Paramount Court, 12th Venue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083.2.The State Tamilnadu, Represented by its Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police Station, 37PPP P24, Esplanade Road, George Town, Parrys, Chennai – 600 108.... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 04/06/2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6143 of 2024 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai as against the petitioner/2nd respondent.Page No.1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025For Petitioner: Mr.T.SaikrishnanFor R1:Ms.V.Anusha, Party-in-PersonFor R2:Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,Additional Public ProsecutorORDERChallenging the impugned order, dated 04.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.6143 of 2024 passed by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, this Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner.2.Gist of the case is that the 1st respondent/defacto complainant filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.6143 of 2024 before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai stating that the 1st respondent is a practising Advocate and she was associated with a law firm namely M/s.Lex Arjava LLP (Hereinafter referred to as “Law Firm”) during the period from November 2021-22. The law firm was operating from the premises Phase-I, Cabin-J, Old No.50, New No.103, Armenian Street, Parrys, Chennai. The law firm decided to stop its work from November 2022 and thereby the 1st Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025respondent's ties with the law firm ended and the law firm had to pay her professional fee of Rs.1,13,000/- but not paid. To recover the same, the 1st respondent filed money suit in O.S.No.1716 of 2023 which is pending before the learned XIV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. During the month of March 2023, the 1st respondent came to know through the lessee/petitioner that the law firm terminated tenancy agreement with effect from March 2023 and the petitioner asked the 1st respondent to pay the rent so that she can use the premises. The 1st respondent paid a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards rent and Rs.2,000/- towards maintenance on 05.05.2023 for the month of April 2023 through Gpay. Though the petitioner agreed to enter a fresh tenancy agreement with 1st respondent, he had not done so. On the other hand, on 14.05.2023 on Sunday, the petitioner permitted the law firm and its henchmen to trespass into the 1st respondent's office who took away all her belongings, case files, cash and gold ring of 3 grams which kept inside the table locker. The petitioner received the lease amount for April 2023 recognized her as continuing lessee. On the other hand, the petitioner colluded and facilitated the law firm to take away all belongings including that of the 1st respondent. For the loss and humiliation caused, the 1st respondent lodged a complaint to the 2nd respondent Police, CSR.No.227 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023 Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025assigned, but no action taken, hence, the 1st respondent sent representation to higher Police officials on 05.06.2023 and the same was received by the Police on 12.06.2023, thereafter, she filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the lower Court during the month of January 2024. Considering the submissions of the 1st respondent, the lower Court by impugned order directed the 2nd respondent Police to register a case based on the complaint of the 1st respondent dated 16.05.2023. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court passed an erroneous order contrary to law and erred in holding that a criminal case is to be registered for the offence under Sections 294(b), 379, 405, 415, 441, 451, 504(ii) IPC as against the petitioner and others which is not proper. From plain reading of the complaint, it is clear that it is a dispute between employer and employee. The 1st respondent was appointed by the law firm namely M/s.Lex Arjava LLP on 08.11.2021 to take care of their Chennai cases and she was offered consultancy fee. Since the 1st respondent not performed to the expectation of the law firm, the law firm terminated her service and not paid consultancy fees, for Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025which, the 1st respondent filed a money suit in O.S.No.1716 of 2023 that is a dispute between the law firm and 1st respondent. He further submitted that the law firm entered into a tenancy agreement with the petitioner on 11.11.2021 agreeing to pay a monthly rent and maintenance charges. Thereafter, the law firm failed to pay the rent, maintenance charges and electricity charges from 15.10.2021 to 30.09.2022 and became due to a tune of Rs.1,39,483/- towards rent and maintenance and Rs.4,642/- towards electricity charges. Thereafter, the rent paid and advance amount of Rs.1,10,000/- available with the petitioner. From 01.10.2022 to 31.03.2023, the rent and maintenance payable was Rs.78,000/- and electricity charge is Rs.896.25/-, hence, the law firm decided to vacate the premises leased out by the petitioner. Thereafter, the law firm adjusted the advance amount and agreed to vacate. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent agreed to pay the lease amount for the month of March 2023 which she will collect it from the law firm. The Chennai Representative of the law firm Mr.Jaganathan informed the petitioner that there is no instruction from the law firm in this regard. The 1st respondent shown some interest to continue for some more time. On 12.05.2023, the law firm authorized Mr.Bharanidharan, Senior Associate to vacate Chennai office and to take control of all objects Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025present in the premises belonging to the law firm. Based on this authorization, Mr.Bharanidharan entered the premises using one set of keys available with him, vacated the office on 14.05.2023 and left some unwanted items. The dispute between the 1st respondent and the law firm got magnified, the 1st respondent came to the office on 15.05.2023, opened the door using one set of keys with her, tore and strewn the waste papers around the cabin, took her belongings and left which is recorded in CCTV camera which is produced in the typed set in this case. Thereafter, for the dispute between the 1st respondent and the law firm, the 1st respondent gave false complaint as though the petitioner facilitated the law firm in taking back their office belongings without informing the 1st respondent. The petitioner is now caught in the crossfire. 4.The learned counsel further submitted that in the complaint, the 1st respondent gave details of missing items such as laptops, printer, case files, water pump, chairs, round table including gold ring of 3 grams and cash of Rs.10,000/-. The law firm took away the office equipments and now the 1st respondent makes a counter claim, it is the dispute between the law firm and the 1st respondent. The petitioner being a lessee, is falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is an Advocate and there Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025are other law chambers leased out in the premises which the petitioner manages as caretaker. 5.He further submitted that on the complaint of the 1st respondent, CSR.No.227 of 2023 assigned, the petitioner appeared and gave explanation by the statement with details. Mr.Bharanidharan, authorized person of the law firm appeared and gave his explanation with details. The 2nd respondent Police enquired the petitioner, 1st respondent, Mr.Bharanidharan and others, found it is a civil dispute between the 1st respondent and the law firm, closed the CSR on 24.07.2025. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached the lower Court, filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Since the impugned order passed directing the 2nd respondent Police to register a case, the petitioner filed the present revision. 6.The 1st respondent appeared as party-in-person and reiterated her employment in the law firm and the law firm not paying the consultancy fee and she filing a money suit in O.S.No.1716 of 2023 which is pending before the learned XIV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. The law firm failed to make the payment to the 1st respondent, instead, in a Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025deceitful manner authorized one Mr.Bharanidharan, Senior Associate of the law firm to vacate Chennai office without the 1st respondent's knowledge and taken all articles, case files including that of the 1st respondent and further damaged the 1st respondent's name plate, case papers was torn strewn around, causing humiliation and sufferings to the 1st respondent. The premises was rented out to the law firm and thereafter to the 1st respondent. By the act of Mr.Bharanidharan, the petitioner's name and fame tarnished and she is put to untold sufferings. The petitioner in all fairness ought to have informed the 1st respondent before allowing the law firm to enter and remove the articles including that of the 1st respondent. For the theft of articles, loss and humiliation caused, the 1st respondent lodged a complaint to the 2nd respondent Police on 16.05.2023, CSR.No.227 of 2023 assigned. Now the lower Court passed the impugned order directing the 2nd respondent Police to register FIR. The 1st respondent on enquiry now came to know that the petitioner has no role in the act of the law firm, its authorized person and others. Hence, she is no more inclined to proceed against the petitioner alone. 7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent Police submitted that by the direction of the learned Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025Magistrate, the 2nd respondent Police left with no other option except to register a case on the complaint of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent Police soon to register FIR, investigate the matter and file a final report within a stipulated period. 8.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that during the pendency of the present revision, the petitioner and the 1st respondent/defacto complainant had interaction and resolved the issue, the learned counsel for the petitioner played active role to resolve the issue and to remove the misunderstanding between the petitioner and 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is convinced that it was the law firm who entered the premises using one set of keys, took the articles belonging to the 1st respondent and the petitioner has got nothing to do with it. The petitioner expressed his concern for the humiliation and sufferings of the 1st respondent and undertook to do the needful. Now the 1st respondent/defacto complainant realized that the petitioner has nothing to do with the act of the law firm and others and she is not willing to further proceed against the petitioner alone. With regard to others, the 2nd respondent Police to register an FIR and proceed with the investigation as per impugned order.Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 20259.In view of the above, the 2nd respondent Police to comply with the impugned order, dated 04.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.6143 of 2024 passed by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, register FIR and proceed with the case but not against the petitioner herein in any manner since the issues between the petitioner and the 1st respondent got resolved and the 1st respondent/defacto complainant is not willing to proceed against the petitioner.10.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.02.09.2025Speaking Order/Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Novv2Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025To1.The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.2.The Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police Station, 37PPP P24, Esplanade Road, George Town, Parrys, Chennai – 600 108.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2025M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2PRE-DELIVERY ORDER INCrl.R.C.No.885 of 202502.09.2025Page No.12 of 12