ORDER 1. The Revision Petitioner/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 31.8.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tiruchirappalli, in dismissing the complaint filed by the Revision Petitioner/Complainant, under Sections 190(1)(2) and 200 read with 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tiruchirappalli, while dismissing Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 on 31.8.2012, has inter alia observed that “... Absolutely there is no evidence for agreement to purchase the house from Gomathi. There is no piece of paper for the proof of Rs. 50,000/- alleged to be given to Gomathi. There is no evidence for permission to put up shed in the house of Gomathi. Simple to settle the dispute, criminal complaint is filed that too register F.I.R. etc.” and resultantly, dismissed the complaint. 3. Assailing the impugned order in Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 dated 31.8.2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tiruchirappalli, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Learned Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., by assigning the reason that the allegation in the complaint is purely civil in nature. It is the further contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/Complainant that the Learned Judicial Magistrate has not appreciated an important fact that there is prima facie averments/allegations made in the complaint projected by the Revision Petitioner/Complainant. 4. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that the Learned Judicial Magistrate should not have gone into the merits of the matter/case in the complaint filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 5. Lastly, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant projects an argument that the averments/allegations set out in Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 filed by the petitioner/complainant makes out offence punishable under Sections 427 , 448 , 294(b) , 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. 6. The Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent/State submits that the Trial Court has gone into the matter in threadbare and come to a consequent conclusion that the civil dispute is converted into criminal complaint due to lack of evidence and ultimately, dismissed the complaint which need not be interfered by this Court sitting in Revision. 7. The Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent/State submits that the Trial Court has gone into the matter in threadbare and come to a consequent conclusion that the civil dispute is converted into criminal complaint due to lack of evidence and ultimately, dismissed the complaint which need not be interfered by this Court sitting in Revision. 7. It is to be noted that Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. empowers the competent Magistrate under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., to take cognizance. Further, on receiving the complaint, the Learned Judicial Magistrate has to apply his mind to the allegations/averments made in the complaint dispassionately upon which he may proceed immediately to take cognizance or in the alternative, he may order it to go to the Police Station for being registered and investigated. 8. The order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate must indicate application of mind as per decision in Ram Babu Gupta v. State of U.P. (2001) Crl.LJ 3363 (3368) 3369. Also, mere allegations about commission of offence without any material in support thereof would not justify or for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., as per decision in S.P. Shenbagamurthy v. Stalin (2003) Crl.LJ 271 , 279(Mad.) 9. It transpires from the C.D.file produced by the respondent Police that the petitioner/Complainant has given petition on 24.7.2012 before the respondent Police inter alia stating that his thatched shed has been destroyed and two times, he has lodged a complaint before the Police Station viz., 10.4.2012 and 14.7.2012 and also that again on 24.7.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, when he has not been present in his house, the thatched shed has been removed by Munusamy, Selvam @ Subramani and they have damaged the same. Based on the complaint dated 24.7.2012 as seen from the C.D. File, it appears that the respondent Police, on 24.7.2012 at about 18.30 hours has issued a receipt bearing No. 180 of 2012 to the Revision Petitioner/Complainant. It appears that the said complaint has been placed before the Sub Inspector of Police for his consideration. However, the petitioner/complainant in the typed set of papers has enclosed a complaint dated 24.7.2012 and it appears that the same has been addressed to the Inspector of Police/Respondent accounting for certain details and finally has stated that his thatched shed valued at about Rs. However, the petitioner/complainant in the typed set of papers has enclosed a complaint dated 24.7.2012 and it appears that the same has been addressed to the Inspector of Police/Respondent accounting for certain details and finally has stated that his thatched shed valued at about Rs. 25,000/- has been damaged by Munusamy, his Wife Valleeswari and his brother-in-law Selvam @ Subramani on 24.7.2012 at 8.00 p.m. 10. In the complaint lodged by the petitioner/complainant before the Respondent Police on 24.7.2012 as seen from C.D. file, it appears that the incident has been mentioned as one that has taken place on 24.7.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning. But, in the typed set of papers, the petitioner/complainant has enclosed a complaint dated 24.7.2012 mentioning the date of occurrence on 24.7.2012 approximately at about 8.00 p.m. in the evening in regard to the damage caused to the thatched shed valued at about Rs. 25,000/-. 11. According to the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the complaint dated 24.7.2012, mentioned in the typed set of papers at Pages 1 and 2 has not been received by the Respondent/Police. Be that as it may, on going through the order passed by the Trial Court in Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 dated 31.8.2012, this Court is of the view that the petitioner/complainant has not produced any documentary evidence like agreement to purchase the house from Gomathi etc., and also any other documentary proof to exhibit as to the payment of Rs. 50,000/- purported to have been given to one Gomathi etc., and consequently, the Trial Court has opined that a civil dispute is converted into a criminal complaint by short-cut method of settling the dispute and has negatived the request for registration of F.I.R, based on the complaint. 12. The impugned order of dismissal passed by the Trial Court in Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 dated 31.8.2012, does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality because of the simple fact that the Trial Court has taken into account the entire gamut of the matter in a real and proper perspective and has come to a right conclusion in dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and this Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by it in dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 13. Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Revision Petition sans merits and the same dismissed. Petition dismissed.