(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS., to call for records and set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mannargudi in R.C.S.No.1/2025, by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.)

1. 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:-

                     “202. Postponement of issue of process__(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction,] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.”

8. On a perusal of the above provision, on the basis of protest petition, two courses are open to the learned Magistrate. He may either treat the same as a private complaint and proceed in accordance with law by examining the complainant and witnesses, or he may direct investigation to be conducted by the police. In the present case, the learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the referred charge sheet, has found that certain material aspects had not been properly considered and, therefore, directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation.

9. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 27, wherein it has been held that, when the final report filed before the Court, the learned Magistrate has every power to choose to reject the final report and proceed to take cognizance of the offence which in his view, are seen committed. He may, on the other hand after pondering over the materials, which would include the statement of witnesses collected by the Investigating Officer decide to accept the final report.

10. Apart from the above, the learned Magistrate may also direct further investigation by the Investigating Officer. In support of the said proposition, reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Narayan Saha and another Vs. State of Tripura, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 775, and AIIMS Employees’ Union Vs. Union of India, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 582. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent also support the above view.

11. Before we further proceeds into the factual and legal matrix of the presence case, this Court deems it appropriate to set out the contours and the scope of the Criminal Revision.

                     (a).The Section 397 Cr.P.C vests this Court with a power to call for and examine the records of the inferior Courts for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.

                     (b).The very object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. In order to invoke the Revisional jurisdiction, there has to be a well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law.

                     (c).In order to invoke the Revisional jurisdiction, the decisions under challenge should be grossly erroneous and with total non compliance with the provisions of law.

                     (d).The Revisional Court may also exercise its power when the findings recorded is based on no evidence or when the material evidence was ignored or when the judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

                     (e).It is also relevant to mention that the Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a routine manner.

12. In the present case, the learned Magistrate, upon considering the referred charge sheet, has found that the investigation was not in accordance with law and that further investigation is required, and accordingly, directed the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter further. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the learned Magistrate has issued specific directions as to the manner in which the investigation should be conducted, a perusal of the impugned order would only show that the learned Magistrate has only pointed out certain deficiencies and infirmity in the investigation and has not issued any mandate regarding the manner and course of investigation.

13. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the observations made by the learned Magistrate could not be construed as a direction restricting the scope of investigation. In view of the above detailed discussion and upon the above legal principles and having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the present Criminal Revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.