BASKARAN Vs. R SELIN REENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are referred to as "the complainant" and "the accused" respectively in this order.

(2.) It is the case of the complainant that he gave a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the accused for getting employment in gulf and that they had cheated him. In this regard, the complainant gave a complaint to the respondent " Police, in which an enquiry was conducted. The Sub-Inspector of Police enquired various witnesses and came to the opinion that the accused had sent the complainant and six others to gulf, but they returned back to India and demanded refund of the amount paid by them. During enquiry, the accused had accepted to refund a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the aggrieved persons, after deducting expenses, within a period of three months and on that ground, the complaint was closed. The complainant was not satisfied with the undertaking given by the accused and therefore, he filed a complaint under Section 156 (iii) Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, seeking for a direction to the respondent " Police to investigate the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate decided to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and therefore, called upon the complainant and his witnesses to give statement on oath. Accordingly, the complainant and two other witnesses gave statements on oath. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate numbered the complaint as Crl.M.P.No.1747 of 2015 and ordered enquiry by the respondent - Police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The respondent " Police conducted enquiry and filed a report stating that it was the complainant and Bino Prakash / A3, who had collected money from various persons on the promise of getting job in the gulf and those persons went abroad and returned back to India and in order to avoid the prosecution by them, the complainant set up a case as if he himself was the victim. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, considered the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and also the report submitted by the respondent " Police under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and by order dated 08.01.2016, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present revision with a delay of 551 days.

(3.) Heard Mr.R.Russel Raj, learned counsel for the complainant, Mr.A.Rajkumar Sen, learned counsel for A1 and A2 and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the fourth respondent and perused the materials on record.