Telephone tapping HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.R.C.No.2784 of 2025 G.Gagan Bothra … Petitioner Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, Chennai …Respondent
[27/01, 16:16] Sekarreporter: Telephone tapping HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.R.C.No.2784 of 2025 G.Gagan Bothra … Petitioner Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, Chennai …Respondent https://www.sekarreporter.com/telephone-tapping-honourable-mr-justice-sunder-mohan-crl-r-c-no-2784-of-2025-g-gagan-bothra/
[27/01, 16:19] Sekarreporter: MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
(Under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Crl.R.C. No. of 2025
in
Crl.M.P No. 15314 of 2024
(On the file of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai)
M. Gagan Bothra, aged 35 years
S/o. Late Shri S. Mukanchand Bothra
8/48, Vijayaragava Road, Tnagar, Chennai – 17 and also at
No. 44, Veerappan Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai – 01 ..Revision Petitioner / Complainant
VS.
The State
Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Cell, Chennai ..Respondent / Respondent
Petition filed under section 438 and 442 of the BNSS
The Revision Petitioner begs to state as follows:-
I. The revision petitioner is M. Gagan Bothra S/o. Late Shri S. Mukanchand
Bothra, Hindu aged about 35 years, at No. 8/48, Vijayaragava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 and also at No. 44, Veerappan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai.
The address of service of all the notices and processes on that of the revision petitioner is that of himself as party in person.
II. The respondent is The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell division, Chennai and the address of service of all the notices and processes are the same as stated above.
III. The Revision petitioner above named begs to prefer this Memorandum of
Criminal Revision Case under section 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita against the Order / Judgment dated 11-11-2025 made in Crl.M.P No. 15314 of 2024 on the file of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and prays for Setting aside the same on the following and among other:
GROUNDS
1. The Order dated 11-11-2025 in dismissing the private complaint for is contrary to law, erroneous and non-application of mind and unsound.
2. The Learned judge failed to note that on dt:- 21-12-2024, the complainant was present and his arguments were heard and the Learned Judge passed the following order:-
“Complainant present. Complainant side heard. Records perused. Police investigation not required in this case. Hence, Complaint taken as private complaint. For recording sworn statement U/s. 223 of BNSS. Call on 22.01.2025”
3. The Learned Judge failed to note that having taken the complaint on file and treated as private complaint, the learned Judge erred in dismissing the complaint u/s 156(3).
4. The learned Judge has failed to apply his judicial mind in dealing with a private complaint u/s 223 of the BNSS since the Learned Judge by an order dt:- 21-12-2024 had already converted the case into a private complaint. Hence resorting back to 156(3) does not arise at all.
5. The learned Judge failed to consider the documents enclosed along with the complaint which would clearly prove the prima facie allegations levelled which requires trial and dismissing the complaint at the threshold is against law and unsound and erroneous.
6. The learned Judge completely erred in Para No.6 by stating that no proof was filed to prove that the cell phone number belongs to the petitioner. It is needless to state that the accused in his own affidavit before the Learned CMM has categorically admitted the same. The Learned Judge has completely given a go bye to the order of the Learned CMM.
7. The learned Judge has completely erred in Para No. 8 and 9 of the impugned order stating that the documents were filed in deceiving the court and hence action has to be taken before the concerned court which is completely erroneous and out of context. The Learned Judge has completely brushed aside the fact that the complaint was sent to the inspector of Police vide speed post and the postal receipt was annexed along with the complaint copy.
8. Another reason given by the Learned Judge for dismissing the complaint is for the delay of 8 months in filing the private complaint as mentioned in Para No. 9 of the Impugned order. The petitioner states that delay of 8 months cannot be a ground to dismiss the complaint since the complaint was arrested on dt:- 2710-2023 in a false case and was released on bail in the month of march 2024 and hence the complaint couldn’t be filed immediately and was filed after the petitioner was out of prison. The question of delay was never an issue before the Lower court and no question was put to the complaint by the Learned Judge for the complainant to answer the same.
9. The Leaned Judge in Para No. 10 has completely erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not placed any document to prove that the phone number 9940401922 belongs to that of the complainant is completely contrary to the affidavit filed by accused himself before the Learned CMM in Crl.M.P.No. 41854 of 2023 at Para No.14 of the affidavit.
10. The various Judgments relied by the Learned Judge to dismiss the complaint are not related to the facts of the case and hence are irrelevant.
11. This is the First Revision petition filed before this Hon’ble Court and no petition has been filed by the petitioner herein previously for the above said case.
12. The petitioner reserves his right to place additional grounds during the course of arguments with the permission of this Hon’ble Court.
13. The reason given by the Learned Magistrate in dismissing the petition is unsound and unsustainable.
The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to setaside the Judgment / order dated 11-11-2025 made in Crl.M.P No. 15314 of 2024 by the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and direct the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to take the complaint on file and thus render Justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 08th day of December 2025.
Petitioner in Person.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Crl.R.C. No. of 2025
M. Gagan Bothra
S/o. Late Shri S. Mukanchand Bothra
8/48, Vijayaragava Road,
Tnagar, Chennai and also at
No. 44, Veerappan Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai – 01 ..Revision Petitioner / Complainant
VS.
The State
Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Cell, Chennai ..Respondent / Respondent
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS WITH INDEX
SI Date Description Page No.
1. -do- Coding sheet 1
2. 09-12-2025 Memorandum of Grounds of Crl R.C
3. 09-12-2025 Affidavit filed by the Petitioner.
4. 11-11-2025 Impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.15314 of 2024
5. 09-10-2023 Complaint to Inspector of Police Cyber Cell
6. 25-10-2023 Complaint to Assistant Commissioner of Police
7. 20-09-2023 Certified copy of the Petition in Crl.M.P.No. 41854 of 2023
8. 27-09-2023 Certified copy of the Order passed by Learned CMM in Crl.M.P.No. 41854 of 2023
9. 20-09-2023 Details of Call history filed by accused in Crl.M.P.No 41854 of 2023.
10. 26-06-2024 Complaint in Crl.M.P.No. 15314 of 2024
11. 26-02-2024 Evidence of the Complainant.
12. 21-12-2024 Adjudication Dt:- 21-12-2024
13. 09-12-2025 Form A & B and Aadhar Card.
Certified to be the true copies of the respective originals.
Dated at Chennai this the 09th day of December 2025
Petitioner in person
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Crl.R.C. No. of 2025
M. Gagan Bothra
… Petitioner
Vs
The State Rep by
Inspector of Police
… Respondent
Memorandum of grounds of Revision u/s 438 R/w
442 of the BNSS
M. Gagan Bothra (Party in person)
9940401922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Crl.R.C. No. of 2025
in
Crl.M.P No. 15314 of 2024
(On the file of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai)
M. Gagan Bothra, aged 35 years
S/o. Late Shri S. Mukanchand Bothra
8/48, Vijayaragava Road, Tnagar, Chennai – 17 and also at
No. 44, Veerappan Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai – 01 ..Revision Petitioner / Complainant
VS.
The State
Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Cell, Chennai ..Respondent / Respondent
Affidavit filed under section 438 and 442 of the BNSS
I, M. Gagan Bothra S/o. Late Shri S. Mukanchand Bothra, Hindu aged about 35 years, at No. 8/48, Vijayaragava Road, Tnagar, Chennai – 600 017 and also at No. 44, Veerappan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 01 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows
1) The respondent is The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell division, Chennai and the address of service of all the notices and processes are the same as stated above.
2) I beg to prefer this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case under section 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita against the Order / Judgment dated 11-11-2025 made in Crl.M.P No. 15314 of 2024 on the file of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and pray for Setting aside the same on the following and among other:
GROUNDS
1. The Order dated 11-11-2025 in dismissing the private complaint for is contrary to law, erroneous and non-application of mind and unsound.
2. The Learned judge failed to note that on dt:- 21-12-2024, the complainant was present and his arguments were heard and the Learned Judge passed the following order:-
“Complainant present. Complainant side heard. Records perused. Police investigation not required in this case. Hence, Complaint taken as private complaint. For recording sworn statement U/s. 223 of BNSS. Call on 22.01.2025”
3. The Learned Judge failed to note that having taken the complaint on file and treated as private complaint, the learned Judge erred in dismissing the complaint u/s 156(3).
4. The learned Judge has failed to apply his judicial mind in dealing with a private complaint u/s 223 of the BNSS since the Learned Judge by an order dt:- 21-12-2024 had already converted the case into a private complaint. Hence resorting back to 156(3) does not arise at all.
5. The learned Judge failed to consider the documents enclosed along with the complaint which would clearly prove the prima facie allegations levelled which requires trial and dismissing the complaint at the threshold is against law and unsound and erroneous.
6. The learned Judge completely erred in Para No.6 by stating that no proof was filed to prove that the cell phone number belongs to the petitioner. It is needless to state that the accused in his own affidavit before the Learned CMM has categorically admitted the same. The Learned Judge has completely given a go bye to the order of the Learned CMM.
7. The learned Judge has completely erred in Para No. 8 and 9 of the impugned order stating that the documents were filed in deceiving the court and hence action has to be taken before the concerned court which is completely erroneous and out of context. The Learned Judge has completely brushed aside the fact that the complaint was sent to the inspector of Police vide speed post and the postal receipt was annexed along with the complaint copy.
8. Another reason given by the Learned Judge for dismissing the complaint is for the delay of 8 months in filing the private complaint as mentioned in Para No. 9 of the Impugned order. The petitioner states that delay of 8 months cannot be a ground to dismiss the complaint since the complaint was arrested on dt:- 2710-2023 in a false case and was released on bail in the month of march 2024 and hence the complaint couldn’t be filed immediately and was filed after the petitioner was out of prison. The question of delay was never an issue before the Lower court and no question was put to the complaint by the Learned Judge for the complainant to answer the same.
9. The Leaned Judge in Para No. 10 has completely erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not placed any document to prove that the phone number 9940401922 belongs to that of the complainant is completely contrary to the affidavit filed by accused himself before the Learned CMM in Crl.M.P.No. 41854 of 2023 at Para No.14 of the affidavit.
10. The various Judgments relied by the Learned Judge to dismiss the complaint are not related to the facts of the case and hence are irrelevant.
11. This is the First Revision petition filed before this Hon’ble Court and no petition has been filed by the petitioner herein previously for the above said case.
12. The petitioner reserves his right to place additional grounds during the course of arguments with the permission of this Hon’ble Court.
13. The reason given by the Learned Magistrate in dismissing the petition is unsound and unsustainable.
I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the
Judgment / order dated 11-11-2025 made in Crl.M.P No. 15314 of 2024 by the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and direct the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to take the complaint on file and thus render Justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on )
this the 09th day of december 2025 ) Before me
and signed his name in my presence)
Advocate :: Chennai
