logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6177 print Preview print Next print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 1292 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
Parties : V. Murugan Versus N. Mani & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M. Karunanithi, Advocate. For the Respondent: R29, C. Susikumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), R30, M/s.M.R. Priyanka Jothi, Government Advocate (Civil Side).
Date of Judgment : 07-08-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS - Section 175 (3) -
Summary :-
Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S.
- Section 175 (3) of BNSS

Catch Words:
- Criminal revision
- Section 438
- Section 442
- Section 175(3)
- Representation
- Investigation

Summary:
The petitioner filed a criminal revision under Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS challenging the dismissal of his petition under Section 175(3) BNSS by the Judicial Magistrate, Theni. He alleged illegal sale of several temple properties and had earlier lodged a complaint with the police and a representation to the Superintendent of Police. The Government Advocate contended that the police inquiry had already classified the temples as HRCE and suggested the petitioner could file a fresh complaint. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (30th respondent) and to the police. The 30th respondent was instructed to lodge a complaint if the claim is genuine, after which the police must investigate within four weeks, notifying the petitioner and alleged accused. The revision petition is thereby disposed of with these directions.

Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni made in Crl.M.P.No. 69 of 2026 by order dated 13.07.2026 and set aside the order of the Courts below.)

1. Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni made in Crl.M.P.No. 69 of 2026 by order dated 13.07.2026 where the learned trial Court had dismissed the petition filed under Section 175 (3) of BNSS, this criminal revision case is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain properties belonging to Sri Cholaimalai Ayyanar Temple, Sri Guruveerappa Ayyanar Temple, Sri Vinayagar Temple and Sri Veerappa Ayyanar Temple situated in Theni district have been illegally sold. Pursuant to which, the petitioner had given a complaint to the respondent police, and thereafter a representation to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police. Pursuant to which, had filed the aforesaid Crl.M.P. before the learned trial Court. However, the same was dismissed without application of mind. Hence, he sought the indulgence of this Court.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the respondent police had already conducted an enquiry and had ensured that the temples mentioned by the petitioner are all HRCE temple and it is also pointed out that the petitioner may be at liberty to lodge a complaint afresh. Pursuant to which, the respondent police will take necessary action.

4. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Theni District is suo motu impleaded as 30th respondent.

6. The petitioner is directed to forthwith submit a fresh representation to the 30th respondent as well as to the respondent police. On receipt of the same, the 30th respondent is directed to lodge a complaint in this regard, if the petitioner's contention is found to be genuine. On the receipt of the complaint from the 30th respondent, the respondent police is directed to conduct the investigation and conclude the same, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter, by putting the petitioner and all the proposed accused on notice.

7. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal