IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.09.2022 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Criminal Revision Case No.1129 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.12638 of 2022 N.Rangarajan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State rep. by Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Vellore, Vellore District

2.State rep. by Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Thirupathur, Thirupathur District

3.G.Shanmuga ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur, Vellore in C.M.P.No.4719 of 2020 dated 12.07.2022.

` For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur, Vellore in C.M.P.No.4719 of 2020 dated 12.07.2022.

2. The 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant had filed a complaint before the 1^st respondent police against the petitioner and others and since they did not take any action, he gave a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and subsequently, they filed a closure report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate wherein the 3^rd respondent//defacto complainant had filed a protest petition in C.M.P.No.4846 of 2019 and after hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate allowed the protest petition by order dated 21.09.2020 and directed the 1^st respondent/police to investigate the matter and to file a report. After investigation the 1^st respondent/police again filed a closure report. Aggrieved over the closure report, the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant filed another protest petition in C.M.P.No.4719 of 2020 and again the Magistrate gave a direction to the

2^nd respondent/police which was established at Thirupathur District after trifurcation of Vellore District, to investigate the matter. Challenging the said order, now the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the very filing of the protest applications one after the other itself is illegal in nature and it is not maintainable. The closure reports dated 26.04.2019 and 25.11.2020 itself would show that thorough enquiry was already conducted. However, the learned Magistrate has again given a direction to the 2^nd respondent/police to conduct investigation again and to file report. He would submit that the order is abuse of process of law and that the 3^rd respondent is continuously harassing the petitioner by filing petitions one after another. There is a procedural illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate. Therefore, the revision has to be allowed and the order passed by the Magistrate is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that there is prima facie allegations against the petitioner and other accused. However, the 1^st respondent/police had not taken any action against the complaint of the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant and hence, he preferred a private complaint before the Superintendent of Police and even after the direction of the Superintendent of Police, the 1^st respondent/police had not investigated the matter in a proper manner and they filed a closure report. Therefore, he approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of Protest Petition and the learned Magistrate found that there was prima facie materials and therefore, directed the 1^st respondent/police to investigate the matter once again and to file report. But the 1^st respondent/ police had not properly investigated the mater and again they filed a closure report. Hence, once the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant approached the learned Magistrate by way of protest petition and the same was allowed. Once there is prima facie allegation is made out for commission of offence, it is the duty of the police to investigate