Saranya vs Mariraj @ Mariyappan

Court
Madras High Court

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On: 13.10.2026
Delivered On: 05.11.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL RC(MD) No. 652 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD010666692025}
Saranya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mariraj @ Mariyappan
2.Senbagaraj
3.Muthukala
4.Pandiyarajan
5.Subbulakshmi
6.The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
7.The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District.
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 & 442 BNSS, to
call for the records of order passed in Crl MP No.2524/2024 dated
15.04.2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District, set aside the same.
__________
Page  1  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan
For R1 & R5 : Mrs.A.S.Rajeshwari
For R2 to R4 : Mr.I.Suthakaran
For R6 & R7 : Mrs.V.Moushica,
Counsel for State of TN (Crl.side)
ORDER
Heard and admitted.
02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was
taken up for final hearing on 13.10.2026.
03. Challenging the order dated 15.04.2025 of the Judicial
Magistrate II Virudhunagar, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’,
dismissing the criminal miscellaneous petition in Cr MP No.2524/2024
filed by the revision petitioner under S.156(3) CrPC, the revision
petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.
04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this
criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision
respondents', unless the context otherwise requires.
05. Prefatory facts are that the revision petitioner, seeking an
__________
Page  2  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
order under S.156(3) CrPC, had filed a complaint/application under
S.156(3) CrPC before the trial court in Cr MP No.2524/2024 alleging
(i) that the revision respondents 1 to 5, under the guise of
arranging a loan of Rs.5 crores to the revision petitioner from
SBI for establishing a textile industry, obtained from the revision
petitioner a sum of Rs.42,00,000/- as commission between
01.12.2022 and 13.08.2023,
(ii) that the revision respondents 1 to 5, without arranging such a
loan, cheated the revision petitioner,
(iii) that as and when the revision petitioner demanded the
revision respondents 1 to 5 to return such commission amount,
the revision respondents 1 to 5 criminally intimidated the
revision petitioner and abused her in filthy language,
(iv) that therefore the revision respondents 1 to 5 have
committed the offences under S.120B, S.420, S.452, S.294(b)
and S.506(i) IPC,
th
that in pursuance of a direction given by the trial court, the 6 revision
respondent, after an enquiry, filed a report recommending for the
dismissal of the complaint/application as the dispute was of civil in
nature and that accordingly, the trial court has dismissed the
complaint/application filed by the revision petitioner under S.156(3)
CrPC.
06. Challenging such dismissal, the revision petitioner has filed
this criminal revision.
07. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.
08. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
__________
Page  3  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
the trial court ought to have allowed the complaint/application filed by
th
the revision petitioner under S.156(3) CrPC directing the 6 revision
respondent to investigate the complaint/application, that the trial court,
without applying its judicial mind, has dismissed the
th
complaint/application simply accepting the report of the 6 revision
th
respondent, that the report of the 6 revision respondent would
obviously support the case of the revision petitioner, that the trial court
has erroneously required documentary evidence for the transfer of the
commission amount from the revision petitioner to the revision
respondents 1 to 5, that the trial court has misconstrued the civil suit
rd
filed by the 3 revision respondent as if it were a money suit and that
therefore, the impugned order of the trial court is erroneous and
perverse, liable to be interfered with.

09. Learned counsels appearing for the revision respondents 1 to
5 would submit that the trial court, after finding that there is nothing on
record to show the commission of the alleged offences, has rightly
dismissed the complaint/ application filed by the revision petitioner,
th
that the report filed by the 6 revision respondent is not a closure
report but a preliminary enquiry report, that the civil suit filed by the
rd
3 revision respondent would show the dispute raised by the revision
petitioner is of civil in nature, that therefore, the impugned order of the
trial court does not suffer any sort of illegality or infirmity warranting
the interference of this court and that therefore, the criminal revision
petition deserves for dismissal.
10. Learned counsel for the revision respondents 6 and 7 would
th
submit that the 6 revision respondent has filed his report only after
__________
Page  4  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
conducting a detailed enquiry by recording the statements of the parties
rd
concerned, that the civil suit filed by the 3 respondent in OS
No.20/2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar,
would show a money dispute between the revision petitioners and
others, that the revision petitioner did not choose to submit any
documents to show the transfer of such commission amount as she
pleads and that therefore, the criminal revision is not sustainable.
11. Point for determination is whether the revision petitioner is
entitled to get an order, allowing this criminal revision, setting aside
the impugned order of the trial court in Cr MP No.2524/2024 and
granting necessary direction as under S.156(3) CrPC?
12. Even a cursory look on the impugned order of the trial court
would reveal the trial court has dismissed the complaint/application in
Cr MP No.2524/2024 on the ground (a) that the revision petitioner did
not produce any document to show the payment/transfer of Rs.42 lakhs
and (b) that a civil suit in OS No.20/2024 concerning the money
transactions in dispute is pending. In short, non production of
documentary evidence and pendency of a civil suit are the reasons for
the dismissal of the complaint/application in Cr MP No.2524/2024.
13. Non Production of Documentary Evidence
(1) S.154 CrPC would read as under:
154. Information in cognisable cases.
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognisable
offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station,
shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be
__________
Page  5  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
read over to the informant; and every such information, whether
given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be
signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be
entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the
State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
Provided ………..
Provided further………
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1)
shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer-
in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to
in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information , in
writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned
who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission
of a cognisable offence , shall either investigate the case himself
or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer
subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and
such officer shall have all the powers of an officer-in-charge of
the police station in relation to that offence. (italics supplied by
this court)
Therefore, what is required for setting a criminal law in motion against
a cognizable offence is mere information disclosing the commission of
a cognizable offence.
(2) S.156(3) CrPC would read as under:
156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognisable
case.
(1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the
__________
Page  6  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognisable case which a
Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of
such station would have power to inquire into or try under the
provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at
any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was
one which such officer was not empowered under this section to
investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order
such an investigation as above mentioned . (italics supplied by
this court)
(3) At this juncture, this court would like to refer to the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhao V State of Maharashtra
((2013) 5 SCC 615) and the relevant portion thereof would read as
under:
‘ 18 . When a magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to
take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the
commission of an offence. The magistrate has discretion in the
matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the
allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the
forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under
Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable
time of the magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a
matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate,
he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to
taking cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the
case of a complaint regarding the commission of cognizable
__________
Page  7  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the
Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under
Section 190(1)(a). However, if he once takes such cognizance
and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is
not competent to revert back to the pre-cognizance stage and
avail of Section 156(3).’ (italics supplied by this court)
Therefore, what is required for a Magistrate to proceed under S.156(3)
CrPC or S.190 CrPC is a complaint/application disclosing the
commission of a cognizable offence and nothing more.
(4) Under S.156(3) CrPC, a Magistrate does not take cognizance
of the offence complained of, but simply orders for ‘investigation’. S.2
(h) CrPC would define ‘investigation’ as under:
(h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this
Sanhita for the collection of evidence conducted by a police
officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is
authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf.

(5) Therefore, when S.156(3) CrPC empowers a Magistrate to
order an investigation, meaning thereby, for the collection of evidence
by a police officer or by any other person authorized, mere a
complaint/application with mere information disclosing the
commission of any cognizable offence would be sufficient for a
Magistrate to act upon. In short, a complaint/application under
S.156(3) CrPC need not necessarily contain evidence much less
documentary evidence inasmuch as such complaint/application is filed
for an ‘investigation’ for the collection of such evidence, as defined in
S.2 (h) CrPC.
__________
Page  8  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
(6) Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint/application in Cr
MP No.2524/2024 on the ground that the revision petitioner did not
produce any document to show the payment/transfer of Rs.42 lakhs is
erroneous and perverse.
14. Pendency of a civil suit in OS No.20/2024
rd
(1) OS No.20/2024 is a suit filed by the 3 revision respondent
st
against the revision petitioner, her husband, 1 revision respondent and
nd
2 revision respondent for a permanent injunction, restraining the
revision petitioner and her husband from interfering with her
possession and enjoyment of her house, and also restraining them from
collecting money from her by unlawful means. In other words, the
aforesaid civil suit is not a money suit concerning the money
transactions which is the subject matter of this complaint/application in
CrMP No.2524/2024.
(2) As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, the trial court has misconstrued the civil suit in OS
No.20/2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, as
if it were a money suit involving the money transactions in dispute.

(3) Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint/application in Cr
MP No.2524/2024 on the ground that a civil suit in OS No.20/2024
concerning the money transactions in dispute is pending is also
erroneous and perverse.
15. It is evident from the impugned order that the trial court has
been completely carried away by the report of the police and that the
__________
Page  9  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
trial court, without applying its judicial mind independently of such
report of the police, has passed the impugned order under the influence
of such report of the police.
16. Ergo, this court holds that the revision petitioner is entitled to
get an order, allowing this criminal revision and setting aside the
impugned order of the trial court in Cr MP No.2524/2024 in such
terms as under.
17. In fine, this criminal revision shall stand allowed,
(a) setting aside the impugned order of the trial court in Cr MP
No.2524/2024,
(b) remanding the complaint/application in Cr MP No.2524/2024
to the trial court for its disposal in accordance with law, and
(c) directing the trial court to complete the aforesaid exercise
within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, without being
influenced by this order.
05.11.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gns
__________
Page  10  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District.
Virudhunagar.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page  11  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.652 of 2025
B.MURUGESAN, J.
gns
Pre-Delivery Order made in
CRL.RC.(MD)No.652 of 2025
05.11.2026
__________
Page  12  of  12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:13:04 am )