N.ETHIRAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dtd. 2/5/2022 in Crl.M.P.No.167 of 2022 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate for land grabbing Court No.II, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner to refer his complaint for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was rejected by finding that the dispute raised in the complaint are of Civil in nature and essentially is of title dispute.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the order of the court below on the ground that the purpose of referring the complaint under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., is to investigate an offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the learned Magistrate neither conducted an enquiry nor directed the Police to conducted an inquiry but come to the conclusion that the dispute is Civil in nature. The learned Magistrate ought to have taken into account Clause 562 Police Standing Order for the purpose of referring the complaint for inquiry and to investigate the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Once the complaint discloses the cognizable offence, the learned Magistrate ought not to have given the finding as the dispute is Civil in nature.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent/Police would contend that the complaint is essentially one relating to the validity of the Settlement Deed dtd. 5/12/2003, which was executed by one of the legal heirs, who also claims that she got the title orally and executed the document. In such case, even if the document is invalid the matter has to be essentially agitated before the Civil Forum. Absolutely there is no forgery or signature by impersonation. The accused being one of the legal heirs, the finding of the Trial Court cannot be faulted.