Anandhi v. The State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the revision stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 156(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 294(b), 324, 506(ii)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. It is seen from the impugned order that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2018 and it is also admitted that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. The fact that the…
- Para 77.Considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2018; the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the compromise immediately, which according to the petitioner, was entered into under coercion and recorded in the Police Station; the fact that there 3\4…
Judgment
Crl.R.C. No. 139 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANCrl.R.C. No. 139 of 2025 Anandhi..PetitionerVs.
The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
Kathirvel..RespondentPrayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS as against the judgment dated 15.09.2023 made in Crl.M.P. No. 1260 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District. For Petitioner::Mr.J. PradeepFor Respondents::Mr.S. Udayakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)1\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 139 of 2025
O R D E RThe revision challenges the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.2.The petitioner had lodged a complaint against certain persons alleging that they had attacked him with sticks and also abused him in filthy language thereby committed the offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC.
It appears that the said complaint was closed and thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that there is no prima facie material to direct registration of the FIR. The revision challenges the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a fact that the petitioner was injured as could be seen from the Accident Register; that the complaint filed by him was closed since the petitioner was forced to enter into a compromise with the 2nd respondent, who had also lodged a counter-complaint against the petitioner; that since the compromise was entered into due to coercion, the same is not valid and therefore, the learned 2\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 139 of 2025 Magistrate ought to have directed registration of FIR.
Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the 1st respondent.
It is seen from the impugned order that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2018 and it is also admitted that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. The fact that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had entered into a compromise and requested the Police to close the case is not in dispute though it is the case of the petitioner that he was made to do so under coercion. The petitioner had not challenged the said action for nearly three years. That apart, the impugned order was passed on 15.09.2023 and the revision has been filed only now with a condone delay petition. Learned Magistrate had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and held that there is no prima facie case to direct registration of FIR.
Operative part
Considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2018; the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the compromise immediately, which according to the petitioner, was entered into under coercion and recorded in the Police Station; the fact that there 3\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 139 of 2025was also a complaint against the petitioner and the fact that though the order impugned was passed in the year 2023, it has been challenged only now, this Court is of the view that the impugned order need not be interfered with. Hence, the revision stands dismissed.28.01.2025nvTo1. The Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri.2. Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.R.C. No. 139 of 20254\4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the revision stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 294(b), 324, 506(ii).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.