(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.829 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palacode dated 25.03.2026 and set aside the same and allow this Revision Petition considering the facts and circumstances of the case.)

1. The Criminal Revision challenges the order dated 25.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.829 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, directing registration of FIR on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein.

2.(i) It is the case of the 2nd respondent that on 12.05.2025 at about 4:30 p.m., the petitioner and other proposed accused came along with the unidentified henchmen, unlawfully entered the premises of the 2nd respondent’s father, i.e., 'Hotel Mayura', at M.G. Road, Palacode, wrongfully restrained the 2nd respondent and demanded payment from him and his wife; and that thereafter they threatened, stating that 2nd respondent and his wife would be kidnapped to Chennai if they did not heed to their demands. The 2nd respondent is said to have lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station at 9.00 p.m. and the police had instructed them to collect the Community Service Receipt (C.S.R) on the next day morning.

                     (ii) It is further the case of the 2nd respondent that on 13.05.2025 at about 5.00 a.m., the petitioner along with his accomplices and their henchmen once again entered the premises, closed the shutter, locked it from outside while the 2nd respondent's brother-in-law, one Subramaniam, several employees and guests were inside the hotel; that after they received information from the said Mr. P. Subramaniam, the 2nd respondent opened the shutter; that thereafter, on 13.05.2025, on the same day, they lodged another complaint and a receipt was issued in C.S.R No. 435 of 2025; that inspite of appearing for enquiry, the respondent police did not register any FIR; that therefore, the 2nd respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.829 of 2025 before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

3. By the order impugned, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed registration of the FIR and investigation on the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent.

4.(i) Mr. A. Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order suffers from several infirmities; that the allegations only disclose a civil dispute between the parties; that an exaggerated complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent herein to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute; that the 2nd respondent is due to pay money to the petitioner and only to avoid payment, the instant complaint has been filed; that the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed under Section 175(3) of BNSS contains various allegations and alleged past incidents which do not form part of the complaint dated 13.05.2025.

                     (ii) The learned senior counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent had not approached the Superintendent of Police before filing an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS, and pending the application before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate permitted the 2nd respondent to send a representation to the Superintendent of Police and that would not amount to a compliance under Section 173(4) of the BNSS.

                     (iii) The learned senior counsel relied upon the following cases:

                     (i)Karthik v. Inspector of Police [Crl.RC(MD) No.46/25 decided on 14.03.2025];

                     (ii) Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddarth Wadhwa, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6444;

                     (iii) Avinash v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5197; and

                     (iv) Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in [2025] 1 SCR 1469.

5.(i) Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent, would submit that no revision is maintainable against an order directing registration of the FIR, and relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Suryakant Dubey & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Allahabad 274.

                     (ii) The learned senior counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent and his wife were victims of criminal intimidation in the incident that took place on 12.5.2025; that the 2nd respondent's brother-inlaw, hotel staff and other guests were wrongfully confined in the hotel due to the act of the petitioner and his henchmen in closing the shutters; and that since both are cognizable offences, the direction issued by the learned Magistrate to register FIR, cannot be faulted.

                     (iii) The learned senior counsel also would submit that the affidavit of the 2nd respondent before the learned Magistrate is in accordance with law, and the fact that the 2nd respondent had not approached the Superintendent of Police before filing an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS would not be a ground to dismiss the petition filed under Section 175(3) of the BNSS; and that in any case, the learned Magistrate had permitted the 2nd respondent to send a representation to the Superintendent of Police, which has been recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, he would submit that the revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the police had conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the dispute was civil in nature and hence, the complaint was closed. However, he would submit that the police would conduct further enquiry subject to the orders of this Court.

7. As regards the maintainability of this petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in Karthick v. Inspector of Police [Crl.RC(MD) No.46/25 decided on 14.03.2025]. This Court, in that case, after considering the full bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Arun P. Gidh v. Chandraprakash Singh and Ors. [WP No.2517 of 2022 dated 10.04.2024], held as follows:

                     “6.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has specifically held that the revisional Court can interfere with an order under Section 156(3) at the stage and the extent indicated in the said order. Hence, the objection of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that revision itself is not maintainable, cannot be sustained.”

8. In Arun P. Gidh’s case [supra] the full bench of Bombay High Court had elaborately considered this question as to whether a revision would be maintainable against the order directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Bombay High Court held that the Court in a revision can interfere in an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and further held as follows:

                     125. To equip the revisional court to exercise the discretion in a correct manner, it may be advantageous for the revisional court to ascertain whether, pursuant to the direction of the Magistrate, FIR has, in fact, been registered. Two situations are conceivable : pre and postregistration of FIR pursuant to the order by the Magistrate.

                     126. (a) If the FIR is yet not registered, an interim order passed by the revisional court, staying effect and operation of the impugned order under Section 156(3), will have full play and the investigating agency cannot proceed to register the FIR and enter into investigation lest the order passed by the revisional court would be denuded of the meaning and content.

                     (b) Such an interim order before the registration of the FIR will operate with full force and vigor, irrespective of the nature of the infirmity in the impugned order which weighed with the revisional court to stay such an order.

                     (c) On the other hand, if the FIR has already been registered, before the revisional court passes an interim order, then the nature of the infirmity in the impugned order may become relevant.

                     (d) If the revisional court finds that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, (of the nature referred to in Para Nos.119, 120 and 122 above), in our considered view, the revisional court must be construed to have the power to stay further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the FIR if the matter is still at the stage of investigation.

                     (e) We hasten to add that while passing such an order of stay of the proceedings at the stage of investigation, the revisional Court ought to record reasons which weighed with the court to hold that there appears a jurisdictional error in passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and thereupon, in terms, direct that the further proceedings be stayed.

                     (f) However, where the investigation culminates into lodging of the chargesheet and/or cognizance has been taken by the jurisdictional court, the interim order or final order passed by the revisional court setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3), will not have the effect of quashing the resultant prosecution.

                     127. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Desai that the view that after FIR is registered revision is not an efficacious remedy, would render the statutory remedy of revision redundant. The order passed by the revisional Court setting aside a direction for WP2517-20222+-.DOC investigation, even after registration of the FIR, cannot be said to be bereft of any utility. If such an order is passed before the completion of investigation, the investigating agency may take the same into account in determining the course the investigation shall culminate into. If such an order is passed, post lodging of the chargesheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate may have the benefit of the said order at the stage of taking cognizance or during the course of the inquiry, as envisaged by the Code. The High Court may also have due regard to the order of the revisional Court while considering the prayer for quashing the FIR and/or prosecution in exercise of writ or inherent jurisdiction.”

9. This Court is of the view that the principles laid down by the full bench of the Bombay High Court are in conformity with the position of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases. Therefore, an order directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

10. As regards the merits of the case, the complaint of the 2nd respondent relates to two incidents that are said to have taken place on 12.05.2025 and 13.05.2025. However, strangely, in the affidavit, which runs to several pages, filed before the learned Magistrate, the 2nd respondent has referred to past incidents that relate to a certain monetary dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In fact, paragraphs 1 to 32 of the said affidavit relate to past incidents which have no bearing on the instant complaint. Those facts are totally irrelevant to the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, for which C.S.R. No. 435 of 2025 was issued by the 1st respondent herein.

11. That apart, the 2nd respondent admittedly had not sent the substance of the complaint in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police before approaching the learned Magistrate for a direction to register the FIR. Strangely, in this case the learned Magistrate had permitted the 2nd respondent to send a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and treated that as sufficient compliance of the statutory requirements under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. This approach of the learned Magistrate is contrary to the procedure and cannot cure the procedural irregularity as observed by the learned Magistrate.

12. In Om Prakash Ambadkar's case [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court after a comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. observed as follows:

                     “31.A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows:

                     a. First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).

                     b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR.

                     c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).”

13. Therefore, it would be clear that the sending of a complaint to the Superintendent of Police is not an empty formality, and the complainant must not only have sent the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, if the station house officer refuses to register an FIR but, also stated so in his affidavit filed before the learned Magistrate while seeking registration of the FIR.

14. Unless the above procedure contemplated in Sections 173 and 175 of the BNSS, is complied with, the learned Magistrate shall not entertain any application for registration of an FIR. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for two reasons, viz.,

                     (a) The affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent pertains to certain past incidents which are totally irrelevant for his complaint dated 13.05.2025;

                     (b) The learned Magistrate ought not to have assumed that the complaint to the Superintendent of Police is an empty formality and permitted the sending of the complaint pending the petition before him.

15. However, in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court directs the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, to either investigate the complaint himself or direct the investigation to be made by any of his subordinate officers in terms of Section 173(4) of the BNSS, only in respect of the averments of the 2nd respondent as regards the alleged occurrences on 12.05.2025 and 13.05.2025.

16. It is needless to say that if he finds the allegations to be true in his enquiry and if it discloses a cognizable offence, he may direct registration of the FIR, and on the contrary, if the allegations are not proved or the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence, he shall file a report, accordingly before the learned Magistrate.

17. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.