The discretion of the Magistrate in accepting or rejecting closure reports and the availability of remedies for the petitioner under Section 200 of CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set aside the order dated 14.05.2019 in Crime No.29 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Thoothukudi.

1. The present revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tuticorin in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2018 dated 14.05.2019 dismissing the protest petition filed by the petitioner herein.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant entered into business transaction with the first respondent in regard to export of match boxes outside India. In the course of the business deal, certain consignments were handed over to the petitioner by the first respondent to be exported to African countries. According to the petitioner, the first respondent had introduced a foreign buyer to him and however, the consignment exported to the African country was not taken delivery at the receiving point and the petitioner was not paid due to the export of the consignments by the buyer and therefore, the petitioner suffered business loss. According to the petitioner, his wife was running a proprietor concern in her name and the petitioner being the husband of the proprietor was in-charge of day to day administration of the concern and all the negotiations have been done by the petitioner himself and according to him, the first respondent along with two others have colluded and cheated the petitioner for which a complaint was lodged before the second respondent police to initiate action against the first respondent and others for the offences under Sections 420, 409 and 506(i) IPC. On the basis of the complaint, First Information Report was registered in Crime No. 29 of 2019. The second respondent police appears to have investigated and after investigation, it was referred to as 'mistake of fact' by the respondent police and the closure report was filed on 14.01.2019.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tuticorin and the learned Judicial Magistrate, after adverting to the materials that were placed for consideration before the Investigating Agency and after going through the report, has dismissed the petition on 14.05.2019. As against which, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein.

4. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the second respondent police, the transaction between the petitioner and the first respondent and others was purely business transaction and the petitioner himself has through his wife has issued several cheques to the first respondent towards purchase of match boxes and since those cheques were not honoured the first respondent has filed a case before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, Kovilpatti under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner's wife. The said case was taken on file as C.C.Nos.36 to 41 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi. has dismissed the protest petition on the ground that already cheque dishonored cases have been slapped against the petitioner's wife, it is open to the petitioner to put forward his defence before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti and as far as the allegations as against the first respondent and others are concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tuticorin has held that no criminal case could be made out and accepted the closure report filed by the police.

5. Mr.R.John Sathiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strenuously argue that the learned Magistrate has not applied her mind while dismissing the protest petition since several contemporaneous documents were filed before the police in order to establish the offences alleged against the first respondent herein and others. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner would