1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.07.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.513 of 2011 R.Muthuramu : Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2.Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai Police Station, Madurai City. :Respondents 1&2/Respondent 3.Paulraj 4.Mangaiyarkarasi 5.Kumar 6.Mahal 7.Pandiammal : Respondents 3 to 7 / Accused 1 to 5 Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5344 of 2010, dated 30.08.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai and further directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai to forward the complaint dated 02.07.2010 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the second respondent police. For Petitioner : M/s.P.Thangaiah For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.P.Kandasamy Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents 3-7 : Mr.C.M.Arumugam ORDER This criminal revision has been filed to set aside the order dated 30.08.2010 passed in Cr.M.P.No.5344 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai and further directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai to forward the complaint dated 02.07.2010 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the second respondent police. 2. The house, in which the petitioner was living, belonged to the third respondent herein. Both the petitioner and the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent had entered into an agreement of lease on 18.06.2006 by means of which the third respondent had agreed to receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- and in lieu of which the petitioner has to reside in the house. Since the respondents 3 to 7 were disturbing his possession, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.94 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town against the third respondent and one Pathirakali. The suit is pending. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and from the forcible eviction from the suit property except due process of law. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that he had gone to Chennai and on return on 01.07.2010, he was surprised to see that the house had been demolished and the household articles belonging to him to the value of Rs.1,00,000/- were stolen. He enquired the neighbour by name Murugan who stated that the third and fourth respondents came, demolished and removed the household articles. The petitioner asked the fourth respondent, for which, he informed that they had demolished the house and also abused him. 4. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai Police Station and the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City as well setting out the events which happened as above. Since no action was taken, he filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.5344 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Madurai, praying the Court to forward the complaint to the Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai, Madurai, to register the case and investigate. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on seeing the allegations in the complaint it is prima facie evident that the third and fourth respondents have demolished the house and also stolen the household articles in the absence of the petitioner. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7 would contend that no prima facie case has been made out on the reading of the complaint. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the petition by observing that when a Civil Suit is pending, he can seek remedy in the Civil Court and there is no merit in the petition. 8. But, in the considered view of this Court there appear to be some materials prima facie in the complaint to the effect that the third and fourth respondents have demolished the house in which the petitioner was living and they have also removed the household articles. To find out the truth, it is just and necessary to direct the police to register the case and investigate. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Court below has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai, to pass necessary directions to the second respondent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3.Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai Police Station, Madurai City. 4.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.C.M.Arumugam,Advocate, Sr.No.22154 ssk/20.07.2011 /6c-3p/- Crl.R.C.(MD) No.513 of 2011 08.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/