The Magistrate must adhere to statutory procedures in handling protest petitions and taking cognizance under the Cr.P.C.

ORDER The Criminal Revision challenges the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 120-B, 109 and 420 of the IPC, against the petitioner who was arrayed as A4 in the FIR.

2. The defacto complainant/2^nd respondent herein had lodged a complaint alleging that he was introduced to A1 by A2, who was employed as a Typist in Tamil Nadu Textile Department; that A1 informed him that State Government is inviting applications for providing jobs for youth, who were below poverty line and she assured that she would obtain a job, for which the defacto complainant has to pay Rs.1 Lakh, as a security deposit; that believing the words of A1, the defacto complainant and about 34 others paid Rs.1 Lakh each to A1; that A1 neither returned the amount nor obtained a job as promised; and that A3 to A6 are related to A1 and when the defacto complainant approached them through telephone, they apologised for the delay and assured that A1 would either get a job or return the amount. The petitioner was arrayed as A4 in the FIR.

3. An FIR was registered in Cr.No.124 of 2020 on the direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., on 25.02.2020 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 465, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 420 of the IPC.

4. On investigation, the 1^st respondent filed a final report against A1 and A2 and deleted the names of the petitioner/A4, A3, A5 and A6. Aggrieved by the said deletion the defacto complainant, the 2^nd respondent herein filed a protest petition stating that the 1^st respondent had erroneously deleted A3 to A6 from the final report, though there were allegations against them. The 1^st respondent objected to the said petition on the ground that the investigation did not reveal the involvement of the petitioner and the other accused and hence, they were deleted from the final report and that the protest petition is without any merits and sought for dismissal.

5. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, considered the rival submissions and held that the final report did not contain sufficient materials to issue summons to A3 to A6 and that if evidence is let in during the course of trial, they could be summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate also directed further investigation by the 1^st respondent to ascertain if the accused including the petitioner who were deleted from the final report, were involved in the offence. It appears that the 1^st respondent had filed a further report reiterating their findings in the earlier report.

6. The learned Magistrate therefore, treated the protest petition as a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., and examined seven witnesses produced on the side of the defacto complainant and found that under Section 210(2) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is empowered to try the complaint case and the case arising out of a police report as both the cases are instituted on the police report and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sankaran Motira v. Sadhana Das & Another, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 584 and further found that the defacto complainant has made out a prima facie case, took cognizance of the offences against the accused A3 to A6.

7. Mr.Praveennath, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 would submit that neither Section 210(2) of the Cr.P.C., nor the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the case; that the report and the further report filed by the 1^st respondent police would clearly show that A3 to A6 were not involved in the offence and the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate by trying the protest petition as a complaint under Se