The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborating evidence for allegations, the significance of thorough investigation, and the application of Section 95 of the IPC in determining the nature of the incident.

1. The facts which give rise to file this revision are stated hereunder:

A complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant, the first respondent herein, against the petitioners/accused before the second respondent on 14.11.2013. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered by the second respondent against the petitioners in Cr.No.2021 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code on 14.12.2013. It appears that the second respondent conducted a thorough investigation into the complaint and finally found that there was no substance in the complaint and therefore a report was filed on 31.08.2016 by the second respondent and the case in C.C.No.266 of 2017 was closed as “mistake of fact”. The first respondent being aggrieved in closure of the case as against the petitioners, filed a protest petition on 06.10.2016 before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.3029 of 2016. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the first respondent/defacto complainant on 22.12.2016 and also statement of one Murugesan on 19.01.2017. Thereafter, it appears that the learned Magistrate passed an order on 02.02.2017 taking cognizance of the protest petition filed by the first respondent/defacto complainant. Subsequently, on 28.02.2017, summons were issued to the petitioners for their appearance for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC. The said order of the learned Magistrate is under challenge in this criminal revision case.

2. Mr.B.Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset would submit that the learned Magistrate has erred in entertaining the protest petition and issuing summons to the petitioners without there being any worthwhile evidence in support of the allegations of the first respondent/defacto complainant. He would draw the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 02.02.2017, wherein, the learned Magistrate has not given any reason for taking the complaint on file, except stating that there was some altercation between the petitioners and the first respondent. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that on the other hand, the second respondent conducted a thorough investigation and enquiry into the complaint. In the course of enquiry, the second respondent enquired five witnesses and upon considering all of their evidences, the second respondent had come to the categorical conclusion that there was no truth in the allegations of the first respondent and the allegations of the first respondent was stage managed, in order to extract more money from the petitioners. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the conclusion arrived at by the second respondent was based on the evidences given by various persons, who were subjected to enquiry by the second respondent and such conclusion by the second respondent was casually overlooked by the learned Magistrate, without any contra material, by taking the complaint on file by passing the impugned order.

3. In the course of arguments, the learned Senior Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to Section 95 of IPC, which reads as under:

“95. Act causing slight harm —

Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.”

According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused, the incident could have attracted only the ingredients as found in Section 95 of IPC and for which no offence could be made out under the provisions of IPC. In the said circumstances, the second respondent had rightly closed the case as “mistake of fact” and such closure report cannot be unsettled by the learned Magistrate, without any contra strong evidence for taking the complaint on file. The learned Magistrate has acted merely