ORDER

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 5933 of 2016, dated 01.12.2016, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil.

2. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant. She lodged a complaint on 13.08.2015 against the third respondent / accused with the first respondent police alleging that the third respondent on 13.08.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., trespassed into her house and picked up quarrel with her and during that time, he abused her in filthy language and attacked her by pulling her saree and thereby, caused simple injury and on the basis of the said complaint, First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No. 272 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act on the file of the first respondent Police.

3. It is also not in dispute that the first respondent after completing the investigation has filed a final report referring the case as mistake of fact on 01.09.2015, that the revision petitioner has filed a protest petition and after enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate has ordered for further investigation. Thereafter, the second respondent has conducted the investigation and filed a final report referring the case as mistake of act on 16.07.2016. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has again filed a protest petition objecting to the negative report and prayed for setting aside the order of final report and to take the case on file. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after conducing enquiry, has passed the impugned order on 01.12.2016 treating the protest petition filed by the revision petitioner / defacto complainant as a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and directed for recording of the sworn statement of the defacto complainant and for submission of list of witnesses. Aggrieved by the said order, the defacto complainant has come forward with the present petition.

4. At the outset, on perusal of the records, this Court is at loss to understand as to why and how the defacto complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, when the impugned order was only in her favour. But, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the learned Magistrate erred in not setting aside the negative final report filed by the second respondent, that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the investigating officer had acted in a biased manner and he was hand in glove with the accused and the final report was tainted with malafide, that though learned Judicial Magistrate has also failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner, that though eye witnesses came forward to depose, he did not show any interest in recording their statements with a view to support the third respondent, that the trial Court has failed to see that the investigating officer has not produced any treatment certificate or wound certificate from the Medical Practitioner, who was said to have given treatment to the third respondent, that the second respondent has simply put his signature and seal for the materials and statements having been collected and recorded by the first respondent, that the order of the learned Magistrate treating the protest petition as a private complaint instead of setting aside the negative report is illegal and erroneous and that the same is liable to be be set aside. 5. The learned Magistrate, on perusing the final report and other materials and in an attempt to answer the grounds raised by the defacto complainant, by observing that non-mentioning of the date and time in the observation mahazar cannot be a ground to reject the final report, as the observation mahazar shall be proved by the examination of the witnesses, that non production of the medical records cannot be a prima facie ground to reject the final report, as the investigating officer has examined the medical officer and recorded the statement under Section 163(1) Cr.P.