Madras High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Seeking Direction for Registration of FIR Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Alleged Government Land Encroachment Matter. The Court Ruled That a Social Activist Without Personal Right Lacks Locus Standi and That Mere Allegation of Encroachment Without Disclosing Essential Ingredients of a Cognizable Offence Does Not Justify Invocation of Criminal Process.

Criminal revision against dismissal of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of FIR for alleged encroachment of government land.

To set aside the dismissal order in Crl.M.P.No.2764 of 2024 and direct registration of FIR based on complaint dated 12.08.2024.

The petitioner alleged that a private college encroached upon a water body and government land, police failed to act on his complaint, leaving the Magistrate as the only recourse.

The Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpet, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 12.08.2024, finding that the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence and lacked supporting evidence.

Whether the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Whether the petitioner, a social activist without personal right, had locus standi to seek direction for FIR registration. Whether the complaint disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. Whether the remedy against encroachment of government land lies before the criminal court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Petitioner argued that the college had encroached government land and water body, constituting an offence under IPC, and that the police failed to act on his complaint; therefore, the Magistrate ought to have directed registration of FIR. Respondents submitted that the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence and the petitioner lacked any personal right or locus standi to invoke Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

A direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR can be refused if the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence; the complainant must have a legally enforceable personal or proprietary right; a mere social activist cannot invoke criminal process for alleged encroachment of government land; the remedy against encroachment lies with statutory revenue authorities, not before a criminal court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; criminal proceedings cannot be initiated without foundational averments disclosing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, as held in Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC Online SC 726.

The gravamen of the petitioner’s complaint is that certain private individuals have encroached upon Government land and water bodies. The petitioner admittedly claims to be a social activist and is neither the owner nor the person in possession of the subject property. It is well settled that protection of Government lands and water bodies, identification of encroachments and eviction of encroachers are matters entrusted by the statute to the competent Revenue and other Government authorities. The learned Magistrate, upon examining the averments contained in the complaint, has recorded a finding that the allegations do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. In Sharif Ahmed Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 726, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that before criminal law is set in motion, the Court must satisfy itself that the factual allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue in the absence of such foundational averment. This Court also finds that the overall conduct and approach of the petitioner do not inspire confidence regarding the bona fides of the proceedings.

The petitioner lodged a complaint on 30.06.2024 with the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, alleging encroachment by a private college; it was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, but no action was taken. He then filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpet, seeking a direction for registration of FIR. By order dated 12.08.2024, the Magistrate dismissed the application, holding that no document or material evidenced the commission of a cognizable offence. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 397, 401
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: