Magistrate may direct further investigation on protest petition after police final report under Sections 173(8)/202 Cr.P.C., without treating as private complaint; revisional jurisdiction limited to patent illegality or perversity.

ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mannargudi, in R.C.S.No.1 of 2025, dated 22.08.2025.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present revision are that, the first respondent/de facto complainant is one of the Trustees of Bharathidasan Educational Culture and Social Welfare Trust. His wife, Vanaja, brother-in-law Ashokan, are also Trustees of the said institution. According to the prosecution, the first petitioner, on 15.07.2018, had obtained signatures of the first respondent and his family members on blank papers. It is alleged that, the first petitioner induced the first respondent to sign the said documents, and had assured that the sale deed would be returned upon repayment of the loan. However, the petitioners subsequently claimed rights as partners in the said institution. Hence, the first respondent lodged a complaint. The said complaint was forwarded to the jurisdictional Police, who, in turn, filed a final report treating the case as “mistake of fact”. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant filed a protest petition and, based on the same, the learned Magistrate, pointing out certain infirmities in the investigation, ordered further investigation. Not satisfying with the above order, the petitioners, who are the proposed accused preferred the present revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, upon filing of a protest petition, it becomes incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to treat the same as a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and to proceed by recording sworn statements. He would further contend that the learned Magistrate has no authority to forward the complaint for further investigation. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate ought not to have directed further investigation in particular direction. He would furthers submit that the observation to the effect that there was no valid sale agreement between the first respondent and the first petitioner in respect of the institution is nothing, but compelling the Police to file charge sheet, which is illegal and liable to be interfered with. Hence, prayed to allow this criminal revision.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent stoutly opposed the said contention and relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1101/2012;

(ii) Chandra Babu Vs. State and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0724/2015;

(iii) Bikash Ranjan Rout Vs. State reported in MANU/SC/0552/2019;

(iv) Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna and Ors. reported MANU/SC/1296/2009;

(v) Hemant Dhasmana Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

reported in MANU/SC/0459/2001; and (vi) Union Public Service Commission Vs. S.Papaiah and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0961/1997.

5.1. The learned counsel for the first respondent would further submit that the learned Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation even after the filing of the police report, in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

7. The short point that arises for consideration in the present revision is as to the course open to the learned Magistrate when a protest petition is filed. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to Section 202 Cr.P.C, for ready reference.

The same is extracted hereunder:-

“