The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on September 17, 2025, dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against a woman for alleged blackmail and fraud. The Court, presided over by Justice Shamim Ahmed, held that the petition appeared to be a “calculated attempt to defame the woman” and entertaining it would cause irreparable harm to her reputation, while also cautioning against actions that could undermine the nation’s cultural and traditional values.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, R. Sathish, filed a criminal revision petition to set aside a April 3, 2025 order by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti. The Magistrate had dismissed his plea to order the registration of an FIR against the second respondent, Rengapriya.
According to the facts presented in the High Court, Mr. Sathish alleged that he became acquainted with Ms. Rengapriya in 2015. He claimed that since 2019, she had fraudulently obtained Rs. 45,00,000 from him by “threatening to report him for cheating her by falling in love and having intimacy with her.”
Feeling aggrieved, Mr. Sathish first filed a complaint at the Kovilpatti All Women Police Station on March 1, 2025. When no action was taken, he sent the complaint to the Kovilpatti Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Thoothukudi District Superintendent of Police on March 13, 2025. As no action was initiated, he moved the Judicial Magistrate Court in Kovilpatti, which dismissed his petition, stating that there were “no specific allegations or averments against the accused and that the petition lacked merits.” This led Mr. Sathish to file the present criminal revision petition before the Madras High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. V. Vishnu, counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was a “poor man undergoing financial distress” and had been victimized by the accused’s fraudulent actions. He submitted that the trial court had erred in dismissing the petition without properly considering the allegations, that a prima facie case had been made out, and that the FIR should be registered.
Representing the State, Mr. M. Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), contended that the trial court had passed a well-reasoned order after considering all facts. He argued that the petitioner’s case appeared to be an “attempt to defame the woman” and urged the Court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs to deter similar actions in the future.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After considering the submissions and perusing the record, Justice Shamim Ahmed found no merit in the petition, observing that it “lacks merit and seems to be filed with ulterior motives.”
The Court stated that entertaining such petitions “would likely cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the woman.” Justice Ahmed observed that the societal context must be considered, stating, “Unlike some Western countries where certain types of relationships may be more prevalent and socially accepted, our nation places significant importance on its rich cultural heritage and traditional values, which are integral to its identity.”
The judgment expressed concern over the potential consequences of the allegations, noting that they “could potentially make it difficult for her family to arrange her marriage with a suitable family of their choice in the future.” The Court emphasized its duty to be cautious and “not entertain frivolous petitions aimed at defaming individuals.”
Finding that the petitioner’s actions appeared intended to “tarnish the 2nd Respondent’s reputation without sufficient evidence,” the Court concluded that “such attempts to defame a woman without credible material are unwarranted and harmful to society.”
Upholding the decision of the Judicial Magistrate, the High Court found no illegality or impropriety in the lower court’s order. “Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the Petitioner’s case and the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the case of the Petitioner by way of the reasoned and speaking order, dated 03.04.2025,” the judgment read.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.
