O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated

22.08.2017 in Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2015 passed by the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against Crl.M.P.No.5083 of 2014 and discharge the petitioner from the case pending trial in C.C.No.734 of 2011 before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

2. The crux of the allegation in the final report filed against the petitioner and the other accused, who were arrayed as A1 and A2 is that the respondent/de facto complainant has invested a sum of Rs.4.65 Crores through the petitioner at the instigation of A1 between 06.10.2005 and 17.11.2005 towards gold and silver on-line trading. The invested amount and profits derived were not returned to the de facto complainant and the said amount has been misappropriated by the accused persons. The final report was proceeded as against both the accused/A1 and A2, since they have conspired together and committed the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. Challenging the final report, the accused filed the petitions in Crl.O.P.No.51 of 2010 and Crl.O.P.No.780 of 2010 before this Court to quash the final report in C.C.No.13970 of 2007. This Court by an order dated 04.04.2013 dismissed the quash petition as against the petitioner herein/A2, however, allowed the petition filed by A1. While dismissing the petition in Crl.O.P.No.780 of 2010 filed by this petitioner, this Court has observed that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner/A2. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/A2 filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition in S.L.A(Crl.) No.7403 of 2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2014. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court has observed that if the petitioner files an application for discharge, it may be considered expeditiously, independently and without being influenced by the observation made by the High Court in the impugned order dated 04.04.2013.

3.It is also relevant to note that not satisfied with the final report, the de facto complainant sought for further investigation before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.11979 of 2007, which was allowed by the trial Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.245 of 2008 before this Court.

This Court, by its order dated 13.03.2003, set aside the order of the trial Court.

The said order of this Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing S.L.P.Crl.A.No.1283 of 2009 reported in 2009 (7) SCC 685 preferred by the de facto complainant.

4.Hence, the final report proceeded on the basis of the original complaint. After dismissal of S.L.P to Appeal(Crl.) No.7403 of 2013 filed against the order of the High Court declining to quash the proceedings against the present petitioner, a discharge petition has been filed before the trial Court. The trial Court by its order dated 27.04.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.5063 of 2014 has dismissed the discharge petition holding that there are prima facie materials available on record collected by the prosecution side against the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, a Criminal Revision Petition was filed before the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2015. The Revisional Court has also confirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate holding that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the trial Court and that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner. Challenging the above order, the present petition has been filed under Section

482 Cr.P.C, as the second revision is barred under law.

5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that merely, because the second revision is not permissible under law, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very well maintainable and the Court can exercise its jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Ap