1. TMT.B.VIMALA (DIED) vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK PS — 17/2025

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 378. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

CRLR - Criminal Revision Petition

CNR: TNVL010036642025

Filing Number

2881/2025

Filing Date

06-Aug-2025

Registration No

17/2025

Registration Date

06-Aug-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Vellore

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Vellore

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 378
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 440

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.1. TMT.B.VIMALA (DIED)

    Adv. SIVAGURUNATHAN A D

  2. 2.2. THIRU.R.BABURAJAN

    Adv. SIVAGURUNATHAN A D

  3. 3.3. MINOR.VENKAT VARSHAN

    Adv. SIVAGURUNATHAN A D

  4. 4.4.MINOR.PRIYA VARSHINI

    Adv. SIVAGURUNATHAN A D

  5. 5.5. MINOR. JAYA VARSHINI. THE MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER NAMELY Mr.BABURAJAN

    Adv. SIVAGURUNATHAN A D

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK PS (Police Station)

  2. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VELLORE DISTRICT.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2025 Court Decision: The Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition and confirmed the lower court's dismissal of the FIR registration request. Key Reasoning: The court held that the dispute is essentially civil in nature involving property title, land usage rights, and consent issues—not cognizable criminal offences. Although the petitioners alleged document forgery and illegal soil excavation worth ₹3 crores on their Vellore land, the court found the allegations lack foundational evidence (expert opinion or signature manipulation proof). Critically, the District Collector had granted valid permission for soil excavation dated 29.03.2022, which the petitioners never challenged before competent authorities. The court determined that registering an FIR would constitute abuse of criminal process to settle a civil dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  11. 30-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  12. 18-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  13. 10-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  14. 03-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  15. 27-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  16. 18-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  17. 11-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  18. 04-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  19. 14-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  20. 06-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  21. 17-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  22. 10-Sep-2025

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  23. 21-Aug-2025

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Vellore

  24. 06-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 06-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 17/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2025 Court Decision: The Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition and confirmed the lower court's dismissal of the FIR registration request. Key Reasoning: The court held that the dispute is essentially civil in nature involving property title, land usage rights, and consent issues—not cognizable criminal offences. Although the petitioners alleged document forgery and illegal soil excavation worth ₹3 crores on their Vellore land, the court found the allegations lack foundational evidence (expert opinion or signature manipulation proof). Critically, the District Collector had granted valid permission for soil excavation dated 29.03.2022, which the petitioners never challenged before competent authorities. The court determined that registering an FIR would constitute abuse of criminal process to settle a civil dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case