V.Gurusamy vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On: 05.10.2026
Delivered On: 12.11.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL RC(MD) No. 1376 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011061082026}
AND
CRL MP(MD) No. 16731 of 2026
V.Gurusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Puliyangakudi,
Thenkasi District.
Vasudevnallur Police Station,
Crime No. 217/2015. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS, to
call for the records pertaining to the order dt. 29.04.2026 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.2535/2023 in Crime No. 217/2015 on the file of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri and set aside the same to the
extent that it directs the treatment of the Protest Petition as a Private
Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and orders the examination of the
complainant on oath, consequently direct the learned Additional District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, to take direct cognizance of the
offences under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C on the basis of the existing
prima facie materials, civil court decrees, and police records, and issue
summons directly to all accused persons.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan
__________
Page  1  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
For Respondent : 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.
03. Challenging the order dated 29.04.2026 of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, hereinafter referred to as ‘the
trial court’, dismissing the protest petition in Cr MP No.2535/2023
filed by him, the revision petitioner/ de facto complainant 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 respondent',
unless the context otherwise requires.
05. Prefatory facts are that the revision respondent, in Cr
No.217/2015 on the file of Vasudevanallur Police Station, had filed
‘negative police report’ dropping the case as ‘mistake of fact’, that
challenging such negative police report, the revision petitioner being
the de facto complainant had filed a protest petition in Cr MP
No.2535/2023 and that the trial court, after due consideration, has
rejected such negative police report and treated such protest petition as
__________
Page  2  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
a private complaint under S.200 CrPC directing the revision petitioner
to appear for examination on oath.
06. Challenging the order of the trial court treating his protest
petition as a private complaint under S.200 CrPC, 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
the trial court ought to have taken direct cognizance under S.190(1)(b)
CrPC, that the trial court, when it holds that prima facie material exists
on record, ought not to have treated the protest petition as a private
complaint under S.200 CrPC, that the trial court, if it finds that the
investigation is defective or incomplete, ought to have ordered for
further investigation instead of treating the protest petition as a private
complaint under S.200 CrPC, that the trial court has failed to consider
the pendency for 11 years and that therefore, the impugned order of the
trial court is erroneous and perverse, liable to be interfered with.

09. Learned Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side) appearing for the
revision respondent would submit that the trial court has rightly treated
the protest petition of the revision petitioner as a private complaint
under S.200 CrPC, that the trial court cannot take direct cognizance
under S.190(1)(b) CrPC in the given case, 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.
__________
Page  3  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
10. Short question is whether a Magistrate, when a negative
police report is filed, can be compelled or directed to take direct
cognizance as under S.190(1)(b) CrPC on the protest petition filed by
the de facto complainant challenging such negative police report?
11. It would be appropriate to refer to S.190(1) CrPC which
would read as under:
190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of
the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially
empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take
cognizance of any offence –
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute
such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than
a police officer or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

12. It would also be appropriate to refer to the prayer in this
criminal revision which would read as under (extracted as such):
‘this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records
pertaining to the Order dated 29.04.2026 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.2535 in Crime No.217 of 2015 on the file of the
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri and set aside
the same to the extent that it directs the treatment of the Protest
Petition as a Private Complaint under S.200 CrPC and orders the
__________
Page  4  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
examination of the complainant on oath, consequently direct the
learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Sivagiri, to take direct Cognizance of the offences under
S.190(1)(b) CrPC on the basis of the existing prima facie
materials, civil court decrees, and police records, and issue
summons directly to all accused persons and pass such further or
other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case, and thus render justice.’
13. At the cost of repetition, here is a case where the trial court
having dissatisfied with the negative police report has rejected such
negative police report and treated the protest petition filed by the
revision petitioner/ de facto complainant as a complaint under S.200
CrPC.
14. It is trite that when the investigating police officer files a
‘negative police report’ against the de facto complainant, the
competent Magistrate has four options,
(1) he may accept such police report and drop further
proceedings, or
(2) he may order for further investigation if he is of the opinion
that the investigation is not proper but perfunctory, or
(3) he may, of course, take ‘direct cognizance’ as under S.190(1)
(b) CrPC if he is satisfied with the materials on record that there is
sufficient ground to take such ‘direct cognizance’, or
(4) he may proceed to act under S.200 and S.202 CrPC r/w
S.190(1)(a) CrPC upon the original complaint or by treating the protest
petition, if any, as a complaint under S.190(1)(a).
__________
Page  5  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
15. In this case on hand, the learned Magistrate of the trial court
has elected the fourth option by treating the protest petition as a
complaint under S.200 and S.202 CrPC r/w S.190(1)(a) CrPC.
16. Finding fault with the learned Magistrate of the trial court
electing the fourth option to proceed under S.200 and S.202 CrPC r/w
S.190(1)(a) CrPC, the revision petitioner, in this revision petition, has
required this court to direct the learned Magistrate of the trial court to
elect the third option and thereby to proceed under S.190(1)(b) CrPC
by taking ‘direct cognizance’.
17. Now, the question is whether a Magistrate, who has elected
one of such four options and taken proceedings accordingly, can be
directed or compelled to elect other option and thereby to proceed
under that other option? In other words, the learned Magistrate of the
trial court, who has treated the protest petition as a complaint under
S.200 and S.202 CrPC r/w S.190(1)(a) CrPC and taken further
proceedings accordingly, can be directed or compelled to take ‘direct
cognizance’ as under S.190(1)(b) CrPC, the third option?
18. In this regard, this court would like to refer to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari V State of
Uttar Pradesh ((2019) 8 SCC 27) and the relevant excerpts would
read as under:
‘ 41 . In the facts of this case, having regard to the nature of the
allegations contained in the protest petition and the annexures
which essentially consisted of affidavits, if the Magistrate was
__________
Page  6  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
convinced on the basis of the consideration of the final report,
the statements under Section 161 of the Code that no prima facie
case is made out, certainly the Magistrate could not be
compelled to take cognizance by treating the protest petition as a
complaint. The fact that he may have jurisdiction in a case to
treat the protest petition as a complaint is a different matter.
Undoubtedly, if he treats the protest petition as a complaint, he
would have to follow the procedure prescribed under Section
200 and 202 of the Code if the latter Section also commends
itself to the Magistrate. In other words, necessarily, the
complainant and his witnesses would have to be examined. No
doubt, depending upon the material which is made available to a
Magistrate by the complainant in the protest petition, it may be
capable of being relied on in a particular case having regard to
its inherent nature and impact on the conclusions in the final
report. That is, if the material is such that it persuades the court
to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating
Officer, cognizance could be taken under Section 190(1)(b) of
the Code for which there is no necessity to examine the
witnesses under Section 200 of the Code. But as the Magistrate
could not be compelled to treat the protest petition as a
complaint, the remedy of the complainant would be to file a
fresh complaint and invite the Magistrate to follow the procedure
under Section 200 of the Code or Section 200 read with Section
202 of the Code.’ (italics supplied by this court).
19. Pertinently, this court would like to point out that the
revision petitioner, by making serious allegations against the
__________
Page  7  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
investigating police officer who filed such negative police report, has
claimed that the investigation has been derailed, that the investigation
is defective and that the police report and other materials culminating
from such defective investigation is also defective and incomplete.
20. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate of the trial
court, in the considered view of this court, cannot be compelled or
directed to take ‘direct cognizance’ as under S.190(1)(b) CrPC on the
presupposition that there are sufficient materials bringing prima facie
case for taking such direct cognizance.
21. Resultantly, this court holds that the revision petitioner is not
entitled to get an order allowing this criminal revision and setting aside
the impugned order of the trial court.
22. In fine, this criminal revision shall stand dismissed,
upholding the order of the trial court in Crl MP No.2535/2023 in Cr
No.217/2015 on the file of Vasudevanallur Police Station.
23. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
12.11.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gns
__________
Page  8  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Puliyangakudi,
Thenkasi District.
Vasudevnallur Police Station,
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page  9  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1376 of 2026
B.MURUGESAN, J.
gns
Order made in
CRL.RC.(MD)No.1376 of 2026
12.11.2026
__________
Page  10  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:55:48 am )