Court holds Magistrate need only see if complaint discloses cognizable offences; allegations of trespass, theft, mischief and intimidation must be investigated despite pending rent litigation.
Chennai, Sept. 25, 2026: The Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by V. Vetri Vendan and others, and upheld a Magistrate’s order directing the police to register an FIR on a complaint alleging trespass, theft, vandalism, criminal intimidation and unlawful interference with possession in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Justice Shamim Ahmed held that the scope of a Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to examining whether the complaint, read as a whole, discloses cognizable offences requiring police investigation. The Court said the Magistrate is not expected to decide disputed facts, assess the defence of the proposed accused, or determine civil rights at the pre-investigation stage.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the second respondent, who claimed that the petitioners and others forcibly entered his business premises in Chennai, broke open locks, damaged interiors, removed business articles and threatened him during the pendency of civil and rent control proceedings. The respondent said repeated complaints to the police had not resulted in registration of an FIR, forcing him to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3).
The petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, arising out of landlord-tenant litigation, and that the complaint was a counterblast to eviction proceedings. They also claimed suppression of material facts and questioned the CCTV footage relied upon by the complainant.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed that the existence of civil proceedings does not create an embargo on criminal investigation where the allegations independently disclose cognizable offences. The Court noted that the complaint contained specific particulars, including dates, the nature of the alleged acts, the value of articles allegedly removed, and the steps taken before the police. It found the complaint neither vague nor omnibus.
The Court also held that the complainant had not rushed to the Magistrate as a first resort. Instead, he had repeatedly approached the police authorities, making Section 156(3) a last remedy after alleged police inaction. The Magistrate, the Court said, had correctly exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure performance of the statutory duty by the police.
On the CCTV issue, the Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that no electronic evidence had been produced. It noted that the judicial record showed the footage and a Section 65B certificate had been filed and considered. In any event, the Court said, authenticity and evidentiary value of such material are matters for investigation and trial, not for deciding whether FIR registration should be ordered.
The High Court relied on recent Supreme Court rulings reiterating that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist when the factual matrix discloses offences under criminal law. It concluded that the Magistrate’s order suffered from no perversity or jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, the Magistrate’s order was affirmed, and the Inspector of Police, E-2 Royapettah Police Station, was directed to register an FIR on the complainant’s application dated 22.11.2024 and proceed in accordance with law.
Bottom Line :
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Magistrate while directing registration of FIR is only required to see whether complaint discloses cognizable offences and is not required to adjudicate disputed facts or defence of proposed accused - Pendency of landlord-tenant/rent proceedings does not bar criminal investigation where allegations independently disclose offences like trespass, theft, mischief and criminal intimidation.
Statutory provision(s): Section 154 Cr.P.C., Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., Section 190 Cr.P.C., Section 200 Cr.P.C., Section 397 Cr.P.C., Section 401 Cr.P.C., Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872
