1. The facts, which are required to be noticed insofar as Crl. R.C. No. 271/2017 are concerned, read thus:

(i) That the revision petitioner is running a Firm in the name and style of Colour Homes, by which, he constructs houses and sell. He has been doing the said business for several years. During the month of May 2015, since the revision petitioner was in need of some financial assistance to run his business, the accused persons, who are the respondents herein, had contacted the petitioner over phone and they introduced themselves that they are having contact with some big shots, who are the financiers at Overseas and from whom, they will arrange loan to the tune of Rs. 25 Crores to the petitioner.

(ii) In order to strike the deal, the petitioner and the respondents had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 27.05.2015, as per which, the loan would be arranged by the respondents to the petitioner and the petitioner has to pay commission to the respondents. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ten lakhs only) was demanded as commission in advance by the respondents. Believing the words of the respondents, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- by way of Bank RTGS.

(iii) Though the said money by way of commission was received by the respondents in advance, no action was taken by them to avail the loan by the petitioner and even after almost one year period, since nothing was materialised, the petitioner claimed to have met the respondents on 18.04.2016 personally at Chennai and when the petitioner made demand of repayment of the advance commission given by him, the petitioner was treated shabbily, thereby, the petitioner had come to the conclusion that the respondents had cheated him. In the result, the petitioner preferred a complaint on 21.04.2016 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, seeking action against the respondents.

(iv) According to the complainant, though the said complaint of the petitioner was forwarded by the Commissioner office file C. No. 1919/COP.V/CCB/16 to the Inspector of Police-II Team, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, the said officer i.e. the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch (hereinafter referred to as CCB) had not taken into account the said complaint and he had not filed even an FIR and he literally refused to entertain the complaint to proceed further.

(v) Aggrieved over the non action on the part of the Investigating Officer of the CCB, to whom, the complaint of the petitioner was forwarded by the Commissioner of Police, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 190(1) read with 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code) before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Chennai, in October 2016 seeking for a direction to the CCB, Chennai, to register a case and to investigate the complaint against the respondents for the offence committed under Sections 107, 109, 120(b), 405, 406, 465, 420, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC. The said petition filed under Section 156(3) of the Code was considered and rejected through the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 25.01.2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 107/2017. As against the said order of the learned Magistrate, the present revision has been filed.

2. The very short facts, which are required to be noticed insofar as the case in Crl. R.C. No. 541/2017 is concerned, read as follows:

That the petitioner filed a complaint before the CCB, Chennai, to take action against some individuals, who allegedly were trying to usurp the building property of the petitioner. After having enquired preliminarily, the petitioner was directed to approach the civil Court to seek remedy, by sending a report in this regard by the second respondent on 22.07.2016. Aggrieved over the same, this petitioner also invoking Section 156(3)