ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 03.04.2018 in C.M.P.No.1714of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kancheepuram.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner/defacto complainant, a case was registered against the respondents/accused in Crime No.480 of 2010 on 07.06.2010 for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 324, 409, 506 (2) IPC. Subsequently, the respondent police after investigation found that there was mistake of facts and hence, filed referred charge sheet on 16.05.2015. Against which, the petitioner/defacto complainant approached the Court for re-investigation and the same was also allowed. Thereafter, based on the order of the Court, the respondent police re-investigated the matter and filed a Referred charge Sheet before the Magistrate on 10.05.2017. Against which, the petitioner/defacto complainant filed a Protest Petition in C.M.P.No.1714 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kancheepuram. The learned Magistrate dismissed the same by order dated 03.04.2018. Hence, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant submitted that the learned Magistrate while passing the order in the Protest Petition, has referred about the opinion of the Deputy Director, Prosecution. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the opinion of the Deputy Director, Prosecution, should not be referred to by the Magistrate. Further, the learned Magistrate has failed to obtain the further statement from the defacto complainant. Even the statements recorded from the witnesses, reveals prima facie allegations. However, the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the same. Further, he would submit that though the petitioner/defacto complainant had referred about the eye witnesses, the prosecution has not examined the eye witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the fact that there are prima facies allegations against the accused persons and simply endorsed the views of the Investigating Officer and dismissed the Protest Petition, which warrants interference.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that in the petition initially filed before the Magistrate, the revision petitioner/defacto complainant did not take such a defence, but, now, after dismissal of the protest petition, he is making the above allegations against the prosecution. He would submit that the Investigating Officer fairly conducted the investigation and found that the allegations levelled in the complaint were civil in nature and therefore, filed the referred the charge sheet before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after considering all the facts and circumstances, dismissed the protest petition as there was no merit.

5. The learned counsel for the private respondents 2 to 6 and 8, would submit that there were no criminal activities by these respondents. The allegations levelled in the complaint are only civil in nature and therefore, the Magistrate rightly considered the same and dismissed the protest petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 and 8 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police and also perused the records.

7. A reading of the complaint and also the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., there is prima facie allegations. The Investigating Officer should have filed a final report and the trial Court should have proceeded with it. When the Investigating Officer referred the charge sheet and when the revision petitioner filed a protest petition before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate should have considered the complaint given by the revision petitioner / defacto complainant and also the stat