Y.Bhavani Sundhari v. State by

ORDER This criminal revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10749 of 2025 dated 30.01.2026 by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other persons entered into a registered sale agreement dated 29.04.2025 in favour of Page2 of 4 the complainant in respect of their immovable property situated at Choolaimedu. In performance of the sale agreement, the complainant paid an advance to the first accused and the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. As a part of contractual arrangement and as security for the advance paid, the first accused handed over the original title documents. However, the accused Nos.1 and 2 did not come forward to register the document. But under the guise of returning of the advance amount, the respondent illegally taken away the original title deed of the property from the custody of the complainant. In this connection, a case has been registered for the offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 303(2), 351(3) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 in Cr.No.62 of 2026 against the accused pursuant to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10749 of 2025 dated 30.01.2026. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/A1.

¶3I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a civil case has been converted into a criminal case and that even according to the Police report the complainant did not co-operate with the police during preliminary enquiry. However, inspite of such factual position, the learned Magistrate without considering the Police report has directed to register the first Page3 of 4 information report. He further submits that such order is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶5At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that in pursuance of the order of the learned Magistrate, an FIR has been registered in FIR No.62 of 2026 dated 01.03.2026. Apart from that, the second respondent herein submits that they had already submitted video records before the police to substantiate their case.

¶6In view of such position and also considering the fact that the First Information Report has been registered, the petitioner is given liberty to submit all the documents before the respondent police and the respondent police is directed to proceed, in line with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau Of Investigation reported in (2026 INSC 115) and 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1578 and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Further, this Court could not see any perversity in the impugned order so as to interfere.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stand closed. 02-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rap Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. rap To

¶1The Inspector of Police, J-6, Tiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai.

¶2The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 02-03-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and Crl.M.P.No.3706 of 2026 Y.Bhavani Sundhari ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State by: Inspector of Police, J-6, Tiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai. 2. M.Thirumalai ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023 calling for the records in Crl.M.P.No.10749 of 2025 dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and set aside the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.S.Thirukkumaran for R2