A Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must exercise judicial discretion by clearly recording reasons for either initiating an investigation, rejecting the complaint, or ordering a preliminary enquiry, and cannot delegate the primary adjudicatory determination of whether a cognizable offence is disclosed to the police.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

1.The present petition raises an issue of some significance touching the scope of the supervisory jurisdiction of a Magistrate while dealing with an application seeking a direction for investigation. The question is not merely whether the complaint of the petitioner deserves investigation, but whether the learned Magistrate, after entertaining a petition invoking the statutory mechanism for investigation, could direct the police to conduct an enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether a cognizable offence is made out.

2. The controversy lies at the intersection of two equally important concerns. On the one hand, the criminal process cannot be lightly invoked to transform every failed financial arrangement into a penal prosecution. On the other hand, where allegations disclose deception, inducement, misappropriation and a pattern of similar conduct affecting multiple victims, the criminal law cannot remain inert under the guise of civil overtones. The Court is therefore called upon to determine whether the impugned order reflects a lawful exercise of judicial discretion or whether it amounts to a deferral of the very adjudicatory duty cast upon the Magistrate.

3. The petitioner, who asserts herself to be a victim of cheating and breach of trust, seeks to assail the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, dated 13.05.2025 in Cr.M.P. No.13 of 2024, by which the learned Magistrate directed the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai, to conduct an enquiry and, if cognizable offence is found, to register a case, investigate and file a report. The grievance of the petitioner is that such an order is legally unsustainable once the complaint had already been placed before the judicial forum for an order of investigation.

Gist of the prosecution case:

4. The petitioner is the victim of an alleged financial fraud said to have been perpetrated by respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 approached her and other members of the public with representations that, if money and jewels were entrusted to them for investment, the same would be doubled within a short period and returned with high profits.

5. Believing the assurances thus held out, and more particularly because the parties were known to one another and belonged to the same village, the petitioner is stated to have parted, during the first week of September 2023, with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and approximately 3½ sovereigns of gold jewellery in favour of respondents 4 and 5.

6. The petitioner would further allege that the jewels so entrusted by her were pledged by the accused in their own names with Fincare Small Finance Bank, Karumandapam, Trichy. Though respondents 4 and 5 had allegedly assured that the investment amount would be doubled and returned, they failed to honour the promise and thereby cheated the petitioner.

7. The petitioner would also assert that she is not the only victim. According to her affidavit, several other persons from the same village were induced in a similar fashion, and in all, respondents 4 and 5 are said to have collected approximately Rs. 50,00,000/-