The Magistrate has a duty to independently assess the materials collected during the investigation and should not solely rely on the closure report filed by the police.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.4257 of 2012 dated 28.05.2014, opposing the closure report filed by the respondent police.

Brief case of the petitioner:-

2. The revision petitioner is an Engineering Graduate entered into a fake partnership firm created by the accused namely Sivarajan (A1) V.Anandhi (A2), Varadharajan (A3) and V.Sasikala (A5) in the name and style of “Clever Soft Solutions Ltd”. The accused A1 to A4 fraudulently obtained a sum of Rs.27,60,000/- in different dates from the petitioner and cheated him and committed him breach of trust. Hence the petitioner lodged a complaint on 21.07.2008 against the accused A1 to A4 and a case in Cr.No.569 of 2008 was registered by the Inspector of Police, CBCID under sections 406 and 420 of IPC. As the Inspector of Police did not take necessary action for filing the charge sheet, the revision petitioner voluntarily filed documents and list of witnesses before the learned Magistrate. Further on detailed investigation, the Inspector of Police instead of filling the final report filed its closure report referring the case of the petitioner as “mistake of fact”. The revision petitioner preferred protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.4257 of 2012 and the same was dismissed by the learned XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet dated 28.05.2014 against which the revision is filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the learned trial Court had passed the impugned order only on the basis of the Report filed by the Respondent Police and not on the materials collected during the course of investigation under section 202 of Cr.P.C. and committed manifest error on the part of law resulted miscarriage of justice against the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the learned trial Court had failed to see that the materials collected during the enquiry and the statement by the petitioner in the complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. are the sufficient grounds to proceed with the case against the accused.

5. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the learned trial Court failed to see the scope of under section 200 of Cr.P.C. to see whether any prima facie offence in this case is made out or not and it could not discuss the evidence and give its own findings.

6. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the learned trial Court had failed to see and exercise its jurisdiction vested under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. even when the Investigation Officer refer the case as mistake of fact and the Jurisdiction Magistrate is having power to cognizance of the case under section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. through the material which constitute the ingredients of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

7. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Lower Court failed to see that the respondent police has referred the case as mistake of fact only on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding. The accused had cleverly approached the complainant with meager amount of Rs.4 Lakhs when the actual liability is of Rs.27,60,000/- and created a Memorandum of Understanding and subsequently he has not acted as per the Memorandum of Understanding and on this ground itself the order passed by the Lower Court is liable to be set aside.

8. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the learned trial Court had failed to see that in pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.06.2010 the accused ought to discharge the balance amount of Rs.23,60,000/- and had given undertaking and gave three cheques for the said sum to the petitioner and in which the petitioner could not realize any of the above cheques and one among the cheques is a defective cheque dated 07.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to cheat petitioner, wantonly created material alteration in the chequ