Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order in Cr.M.P.No.371 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, dated 02.12.2024 and set aside the same.

 ORDER

1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.371 of 2024, dated 02.12.2024, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

2. The case of the petitioner is that the Madavar Valagam Arulmigu Vaidhiyanatha Swamy Thirukovil at Padikkasu Vaithanpatti, Srivilliputhur Taluk is owning dry lands in S.No.149/6 measuring 36 hectares and is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department ; that Aadhi Narayanaswamy Temple, in which the petitioner is worshipping, is situated in the said lands; that the respondents 2 to 11, without getting any permission from the HR & CE Department or from Panchayat Union Office of the Srivilliputhur, have colluded together and encroached the said temple lands and are constructing Marriage Hall by cutting trees and removal of the same from the said lands; that the petitioner has lodged a complaint with the 12th respondent/Executive Officer of the said Temple, but he has failed to take any action; that the petitioner has then sent complaints to the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department, District Collector, Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District and to the Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station; that the respondents 1 to 12, even after the above complaints, have again cut the trees and removed the same; that when the petitioner has visited the temple at about 08.00 am on 22.12.2023, for worshipping and on seeing the cutting of trees, he made an enquiry with the people, who were cutting the trees, but they have abused him in filthy language and caused criminal intimidation and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for registration of FIR and for investigation.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, taking the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., on file in Cr.M.P.No.371 of 2024 and upon perusing the petition, petitioner’s affidavit and on hearing the petitioner’s side, has passed the impugned order, dated 02.12.2024, by holding that the dispute is of civil in nature, dismissed the petition.

4. Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Indian Oil Corporation vs M/S NEPC India Ltd., and Others, in Crl.A.No.834 of 2002, dated 20.07.2002, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of attempting to settle the civil disputes by applying pressure through criminal prosecution and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

 

“10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed :

“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

” While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.”

5. In Mitesh Kumar J Sha vs The State Of Karnataka (Crl.A.No. 1285 of 2021, dated 26.10.2021), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that cloaking a civil dispute with a criminal nature in order to get quicker relief is an abuse of process of law which must be discouraged. Bearing the above legal position on mind, let us consider the case on hand.

 

6.As already pointed out, the petitioner has filed the above complaint/petition for encroaching into the temple’s lands, making construction of marriage hall and cutting of trees available in the said lands. Even according to the petitioner, the respondents 2 to 11 are now making construction of a marriage hall in the said lands. It is pertinent to note that in the prayer shown in the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has stated that the lands belonging to Aadhi Narayanaswamy Temple were in possession of the petitioner, but such a version was nowhere whispered in the body of the petition.

7.The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that there existed some disputes with regard to the management, for which the petitioner has attempted to give a criminal color and as such, I am in entire agreement with the observations made by the learned Magistrate. 8.Moreover, admittedly, the petitioner has sent complaints to the HR & CE Officials, District Collector, Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District and the jurisdictional Police of Vanniyampatti Police Station and he has produced the copies of the said petitions, dated 06.12.2023 and according to the petitioner, he sent a remainder on 22.12.2023.

 

9. It is settled law that in order to make a duly constituted application for invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, compliance of subsections (1) & (3) of Section 154 of the CrPC would be absolutely necessary and it is sine qua non for making the application maintainable under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner before filing the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C has to file a complaint before the jurisdictional police and in case of their failure to register the complaint, he has to approach the Superintendent of Police for the said purpose and even thereafter, complaint is not registered, then he has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate.

10. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that since there was no action from the jurisdictional police, he sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, but on the other hand, he sent the complaints to the several people including the jurisdictional police and the Superintendent of Police simultaneously.

 

11. Considering the above, this Court has no other option but to say that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirements before filing the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, this Court concludes that the Criminal Revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file a private complaint, if so advised.

12. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed.