The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of necessary ingredients to constitute alleged offenses, the significance of contradictions in recorded statements, and the importance of a prima facie case in reaching a decision.

1. The defacto complaint was served with notice. She is also present in this Court. On being questioned, she submits that she is not interested in becoming a party-respondent in the revision and contesting the revision. The same is recorded.

2. The arguments advanced by Mr. G. Thiruvarutselvan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and by Mrs. S. Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl. side) representing the respondent/Police are heard. The materials available on record submitted by the Court below and also the materials available in the C.D file produced by the respondent for the perusal of the Court are perused.

3. Based on the complaint of the de-facto complainant dated 05.02.2012, a case was registered against the Petitioner in All Women Police Station, Thiruvadanai as Crime No.10 of 2012 in the said Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 417 and 506(i) IPC and also the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The allegations made in the complaint are that the de-facto complaint and the Petitioner loved each other and the Petitioner developed intimacy with her promising to marry her; that subsequently he went back from the promise and refused to marry her and that when the relatives of the de-facto complainant questioned the Petitioner, he caused a threat to them that he would kill the defacto complainant. Based on the said allegation alone, the First Information Report was drawn and the case was registered. In fact, the original complaint dated 3.1.2012 and it was subsequently corrected to 5.5.2012 and the case came to be registered on 5.5.2012. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvadanai submitted the final report on the file of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai accusing the revision Petitioner of committing the above said offences. On his production/appearance, the revision Petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.860 of 2013 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., praying for an order of discharge. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Thiruvadanai, after hearing, dismissed the said discharge petition, namely Cr.M.P.No.860 of 2013 in C.C.No.21 of 2013 holding that there were prima facie materials for presuming that the Petitioner had committed the offences alleged in the final report. The said impugned of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai came to be passed on 9.5.2014. The legality and correctness of the said order are questioned in the present Criminal Revision Case preferred by the Petitioner under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. A perusal of the records shows that the complaint simply reveals the love affair between the Petitioner and the defacto complainant Both of them were college going students studying in different colleges. The defacto complaint was pursuing degree course in Idhaya College, Sarugani, whereas the revision Petitioner was pursuing his degree course in Ananda College, Devakkottai. Due to infactuation or meeting point of the minds of the matured persons, they developed intimacy and love affair with each other. The contents of the complaint and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation reveal that they did not cross the Laxman Rekha. There is no allegation that the defacto complainant parted with any property on the promise of the Petitioner. There is also no averment that she committed any act which would have detrimentally affected beleiving the promise made by the Petitioner. A reading of the contents of the First Information Report and the statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C makes it clear that necessary averments to attract Section 406 IPC are not there. Necessary ingredients to constitute cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C have not been alleged to exist.

5. The Station House Officer chose to register the case for an offence unde