ORDER
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
1. Whether a Magistrate is bound to send a notice to an informant while considering the final report submitted by the Police under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in spite of the fact that informant appeared before the Court at the time of consideration? Whether a Magistrate is competent to proceed with the original private complaint, when a final report is filed by the Police under Section 173(2) after an investigation as directed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the private complaint? Whether a private complaint is maintainable once a final report under Section 173(2) is submitted by the Police. These are the important questions of general importance to be decided in this case.
2. The factual matrix of the case relevant for a proper understanding of the question in brief is as follows:- First respondent filed C.M.P. No. 2163/02 before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode against the revision petitioner contending that petitioner committed the offences under Sections 420, 506(1) of I.P.C. The allegation in the complaint was that petitioner induced first respondent to join his partnership business at Sharja and first respondent was persuaded to part with Rs. 18.5 lakhs on different occasions. Violating the conditions petitioner failed to give the share of profits to the first respondent. He also did not pay back the amount paid by the first respondent. Petitioner also threatened first respondent and his son when first respondent demanded back the amount. Petitioner thereby committed offence under Sections 420 and 506(1) of I.P.C. As per order dated 17.4.2003, learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to Station House Officer, Nadakkavu Police Station for directing investigation as provided under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Sub Inspector of Police registered a First Information Report and investigated the case. After completing investigation final report dated 11.7.2002 finding that the dispute is of civil nature was prepared. Copy of the final report with a notice as provided under Section 173(2)(ii) of Code was sent to first respondent. On receipt of the same, first respondent filed C.M.P. 7489/02 a complaint filed under Section 190(1) of Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offences. First respondent produced copy of the final report and the notice received by him along with that complaint. It was filed on 25.9.2002. By that time the final report was not filed before the Court. It was filed before the Court only on 11.12.2002. Learned Magistrate as per order dated 25.9.2002 directed the petition to be put up after receipt of the final report. After receipt of the final report, learned Magistrate clubbed the complaint with the refer report and recorded the sworn statement of first respondent and his witness and as per order dated 11.2.2003 directed to issue summons to the revision petitioner, after taking the case on file as complaint case for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(2) of the Code. Accused is challenging the said order in the revision.
3. Revision petitioner would contend that learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in the private complaint filed by the first respondent before deciding what action has to be taken in the final report submitted by the Police and in any event Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain a second complaint and the complaint taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate which is in the nature of a protest complaint is not maintainable in law and therefore the order taking cognizance of the offence by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable.
4. Advocate Mr. T.G. Rajendan, learned Counsel appearing for revision petitioner vehemently argued that the very procedure adopted by learned Magistrate is illegal and for that sole reason the order taking cognizance of the offence is to be set aside. The argument of the learned Counsel is that though first respondent produced a copy of the final report and a notice issued by the Police along with the second complaint, as is bound to Magistrate did not issue a notice to the complainant and therefore learned Magistrate could not have considered what action is to be taken on the final report. It was also argued that learned Magistrate has not passed any order on the final report submitted to the Police under Section 173(2) of the Code and so learned Magistrate could not have taken action in the complaint and cognizance on the final report itself should have been taken. Learned Counsel also argued that the second complaint was filed on the very same allegations raised in the first complaint and therefore unless there is a change of circumstance or fresh materials were placed a second complaint is not maintainable and therefore learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance in the second complaint at all and hence the order is to be set aside.
5. Advocate Mr. Grashious Kuriakose argued that the learned Magistrate is not powerless when a final report is submitted by the Police and learned Magistrate did not accept the final report and instead recorded the sworn statements of first respondent and his witness in the complaint and only thereafter took cognizance of the offences and the order is perfectly legal and warrants no interference.
6. Chapter XII of the Code deals with information to the Police and their powers to investigate. Section 156(1) vests in an officer-in-charge of the Police Station the power to investigate any cognizable offence. No order of the Magistrate is necessary to investigate a cognizable offence. Sub-section (3) of Section 156 authorises a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 to order an investigation as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 156. Section 157 deals with the power and procedure for investigation. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 157 the Officer-in-charge of a police station who has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate shall forthwith send a report to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. Proviso (b) therein enables the Station House Officer if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation not to investigate the case, but in such a case he is required to forthwith notify to the informant the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 157. Section 173 provides what an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station is required to do on completion of an investigation. Sub-section (1) of Section 173 casts a duty on the Police Officer to complete investigation without unnecessary delay. Sub-section 2(i) of Section 173 provides that as soon as investigation is completed, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government setting out various particulars including whether in his opinion any offence appears to have been committed and if so by whom. Sub-section 2 (ii) of Section 173 provides that the officer shall also communicate in the manner prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. The report submitted to the Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 shall state the various particulars mentioned in that sub-section to enable the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence on the police report. The reason for communicating the action taken by the Station House Officer to the first informant as provided under Clause 2 of Section 173(ii) is that it was the informant who sets the machinery of investigation into motion by filing the F.I.R. He must therefore know what is the result of the investigation initiated on the basis of his F.I.R. It is because he is vitally interested in the result of the investigation. The law therefore requires that action taken by the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station on the First Information Report should be communicated to him. So also the report forwarded by the Station House Officer to the Magistrate under Sub-section 2(i) of Section 173 shall also be supplied to him. While communicating the information as contemplated under Section 173(2)(i) the report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person. Magistrate may either accept the report or take cognizance of the offence or may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or may direct further investigation under Section 156(3). On the other hand, the report submitted by the Station House Officer may be to the effect that in the opinion of the Police, no offence appears to have been committed. Magistrate may either accept the report and drop the proceedings or may disagree with the report and may find that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further and may take cognizance of the offence and issue process under Section 204 or he may direct further investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156.
7. Chapter XIV deals with conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Section 190 reads:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the First Class, and any Magistrate of the Second Class especially empowered in this behalf under Sub-section (2) may take cognizance of any offence–
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the Second Class to take cognizance under Sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try,
8. Chapter XV deals with complaints to Magistrate. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses if any present. Under Section 202 a Magistrate taking cognizance of a case upon a complaint, if he thinks fit, may 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 there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not. Section 203 enables the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint if he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. But that has to be done after considering the statement on oath if any of the complainant and the witnesses if any and the result of an inquiry or investigation if any as provided under Section 202. Chapter XVI deals with commencement of proceedings before the Magistrate. Section 204 enables the Magistrate to issue summons or warrant as the case may be to secure the attendance of the accused, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
9. A Magistrate receiving a complaint has several courses open to him. He may take cognizance of the offence and proceed to record the statements of complainant and the witnesses present as provided under Section 200. If the Magistrate thereafter is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding can dismiss the complaint as provided under Section 203. On the other hand if he is of the opinion that there is ground for proceeding, the Magistrate can issue process as provided under Section 204. If the Magistrate thinks fit, he may postpone the issue of processes and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding as provided under Section 202. Thereafter the Magistrate may issue-process if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding or dismiss the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. At the very inception if the Magistrate on receipt of the opinion thinks fit may instead of taking cognizance of the offence, order an investigation as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section I56. In that case, on receipt of the order and the complaint forwarded by the Magistrate, Police has to register a case and investigate. On completing the investigation a report as provided under Section 173(2) has to be submitted. On receipt of that report, Police may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and straightway issue process. The Magistrate is empowered to do so, irrespective of the view expressed by the Police in their report as to whether an offence has been made out or not. The report as provided under Sub-section 2 of Section 173 shall contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the Police as well as the conclusions drawn by the Police therefrom. But the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the Police. He may decide to issue process, even if Police recommend that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further. On receipt of the report under Section 173(2) Magistrate, without issuing process or dropping the proceeding, may decide to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted and may proceed to record the statement upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present as provided under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter the Magistrate can decide to issue process as provided under Section 204 or to dismiss the complaint as provided under Section 203. If the Magistrate on receipt of the report is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard; so that the informant can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. The Apex Court has settled this position in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police ((1985) 2 SCC 537). Their Lordships held:
“in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to lake cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.”
This position was subsequently reiterated by the Apex Court in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah ((1997) 7 SCC 614). It is relying on this decision Advocate Mr. Rajendran vehemently argued that notice to the informant has to be given not by the Investigating Officer, but by the Magistrate and even if notice was given by the Investigating Officer, it will not satisfy the purpose. According to the learned counsel if no notice was furnished by the Court, action on the final report taken is illegal. In U.P.S.C. v. S. Papaiah ((1997) 7 SCC 614) the Apex Court held that issuance of notice by C.B.I., to the informant was not a substitute for the notice which was required to be given by the Magistrate in terms of the judgment in Bhagwant Singh’s case. It was held:
“The C.B.I. also did not issue any fresh notice to the U.P.S.C. before it resubmitted the final report to the learned Magistrate on 24.2.1995. Learned Magistrate could not in any event ‘delegate’ to the investigating agency its function of issuing notice. Moreover, when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and in no other manner.”
In view of the law as settled by the Apex Court issuance of a notice by the Station House Officer or the Investigating Agency will not satisfy the sending of a notice which should be given by the Magistrate in terms of the judgment in Bhagwant Singh’s case. Admittedly in this case no notice was issued by the Court instead copy of the final report and the notice as contemplated under Section 173(2) was furnished by the Sub Inspector. But the question is whether that is fatal when the informant is aware of the submission of the final report and also appeared before the Magistrate when the final report was being considered.
10. The final report was prepared by the Sub Inspector on 11.7.2002. Before submitting the final report, the Sub Inspector had served a notice as provided under Section 173(2)(ii) of Cr.P.C. The final report was submitted before the Court only on 11.12.2002 as is clear from the seal of the Court affixed in the final report. But even prior to that date, informality first respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate by filing C.M.P. No. 7489/02 on 25.9.2002. Along with that petition, he had produced a copy of the notice received from the Sub Inspector as well as copy of the final report. In C.M.P. No. 7489/02 first respondent informant specifically pleaded that he had received the notice issued by the Sub Inspector. It was also contended that refer report was submitted without proper investigation and he is prepared to produce the witnesses and documents to prove the offences and therefore prayed the Court to take cognizance of the offence after permitting him to examine witnesses. The learned Magistrate on receipt of C.M.P. No. 7489/02 postponed consideration of the petition with a direction to put up the file along with the final report as the final report was not received at that time. Finally after receipt of the final report, learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of first respondent on 4.1.2003 and posted the complaint along with the refer report which was clubbed with the complaint for consideration to 14.1.2003. The sworn statement of other witness was recorded on 28.1.2003. Petition was posted to 11.2.2003 for consideration. After considering the materials including the sworn statements and the final report, as per order dated 11.2.2003, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 506(2) I.P.C. and issued summons to revision petitioner. Therefore though learned Magistrate did not issue a notice to the first respondent in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh’s case, before receiving the final report in Court, the first respondent informant had appeared before the Magistrate of his own and prayed for rejection of the final report. Therefore this a case where no specific notice, in terms of Bhagwant Singh’s case was warranted. The informant himself was present in Court at the time of consideration of the report. The notice contemplated in Bhagwant Singh’s case to the informant is only to enable the informant to be heard before considering the final report. It was not an empty formality. When the informant himself appeared, there is no necessity to issue a notice in terms of Bhagwant Singh’s case. The legal position is clear. On receipt of the final report submitted by the Station House Officer under Section 173(2)(i) of Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings, Magistrate is bound to give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. That notice has to be given by the Magistrate and not by the Station House Officer or the Investigating Agency. It does not mean that in every case, including a case where the informant appears before the Magistrate at the time of considering the report of his own, has to be issued with a notice by the Magistrate. As in this case, if on receipt of the notice given by the Investigating Officer, informant appears before the Magistrate and was present at the time of consideration of the final report, no further notice is necessary in terms of the judgment in Bhagwant Singh’s case.
11. The argument of Advocate Sri. T.G. Rajendran is that learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police and did not pass any order rejecting the final report and instead took cognizance in the private complaint which is illegal The argument is that the private complaint which was taken cognizance of was a second complaint which is not legally maintainable, unless there is any change of circumstance or materials than what was alleged in the original complaint and therefore learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance in the second complaint at all and for that reason the order is unsustainable. Learned counsel also argued that learned Magistrate can either accept the final report in accordance with the opinion of the Station House Officer and drop the proceedings or take cognizance on the materials available in the final report and the records submitted along with it. According to the counsel he is not entitled to take cognizance in the private complaint and therefore taking cognizance of offences in the second complaint is unsustainable.
12. There is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. But it could be entertained only on exceptional circumstances like a case where an order in the previous complaint was filed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding the nature of the complaint or that order was manifestly absurd or unjust or availability of new facts which could not be brought on record in the previous case in spite of exercise of reasonable diligence. The question was settled by the Apex Court in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy ((2003) 1 SCC 734). Analysing the earlier decisions, the Apex Court held:
“It is settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts.
* ** ** ** Second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced." In Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru (2005 (1) KLT (SC) (SN) 6), the Apex Court again considered this aspect and approved the decision in Mahesh Chand's case. Therefore even if the complaint originally filed was dismissed, it will not bar the filing of a second complaint.
13. C.M.P. No. 2163/03, the original complaint was not dismissed by the learned Magistrate. In fact the learned Magistrate did not conduct an enquiry as provided under Section 202 and instead forwarded it to the Station House Officer as provided under Section 156(3) to investigate the case. It is after investigation as directed by the learned Magistrate, the Sub Inspector submitted a final report. In fact even before receiving the final report in Court, copy of the final report sent by the Sub Inspector was received by the first respondent. He filed C.M.P. No. 7489/02 with a prayer to take cognizance of the offence contending that it was without proper investigation final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer, and he has to be permitted to examine witnesses to enable the Court to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore the complaint on which the learned Magistrate was taken cognizance of is not a second complaint filed after dismissal of the first complaint as canvassed by Advocate Sri. T.G. Rajendran. First complaint was not dismissed. Entertaining of a second complaint on the same allegations was barred only when a previous complaint on the same facts was dismissed. Even if there was such a dismissal, a second complaint could be entertained, in exceptional circumstance as declared by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand’s case.
14. The question whether after the final report was accepted by the Magistrate whether a complaint on that facts could be entertained was considered by the Apex Court in Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra (JT 2001 (Supp. 2) SC 386). When this matter came up before the Apex Court originally a Division Bench of the Supreme Court as per the decision dated 25.1.2001 ((2001) 1 SCC 59) referred it to a larger Bench as the legal position has to be settled. It was decided by the Larger Bench (2001 (3) Crime 205). Their Lordships held:
“On examining the different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the decisions of this Court relevant on the question, we see no divergence in the matter. It is too well-settled that when police after investigation, files a final form under Section 173 of the Code, the Magistrate may disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the police and take cognizance in exercise of power under Section 190 of the Code. The Magistrate may not take cognizance and direct further investigation in the matter under Section 156 of the Code. Where the Magistrate accepts the final form submitted by the Police, the right of the complainant to file a regular complaint is not taken away and in fact on such a complaint being filed the Magistrate follows the procedure under Section 201 of the Code and takes cognizance if the materials produced by the complainant make out an offence. This question has been raised and answered by this Court in the case of Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Ors. ((1982) 3 SCC 510) whereunder the view of the Patna High Court to the contrary has been reversed. The Court in no uncertain terms in the aforesaid case has indicated that the acceptance of final form does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance on the basis of the materials produced in a complaint proceeding.”
Therefore even if it is taken that a final report was accepted by the learned Magistrate, that does not mean that a private complaint cannot be entertained. The Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of materials produced in the proceedings.
15. When the original complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) and after investigation a final report is filed before the Court, that does not mean that the original complaint is effaced from the record. In the first instance on receipt of a complaint, instead of taking cognizance of the offence and proceeding to enquire under Section 200 of the Code, Magistrate is competent to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. When the complaint is so forwarded, the Station House Officer is bound to register the case and investigate the same and after investigation police has either to submit a final report to take cognizance of the offence or to refer the case. The Magistrate after receiving the Police report is competent to reject the opinion of the Station House Officer and take cognizance of the offence on the Police report itself on the material available therein. The Magistrate is also competent to order further investigation as provided under Section 156(3). That does not mean that Magistrate is competent to take cognizance only on the report of the Police and not on the original complaint. This position has been settled by the Apex Court in H.S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) (AIR 1980 SC 1883). Their Lordships held:
“The Magistrate after receiving the police report, may, without issuing process or dropping the proceeding decide to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statements upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether to dismiss the complaint or issue process. The mere fact that he had earlier ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) and received a report under Section 173 will not have the effect of total effacement of the complaint and therefore the Magistrate will not be barred from proceeding under Sections 200, 203 and 204. Thus, a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under Section 156(3) and receives a police report under Section 173(1), may, thereafter, do one of three things: (1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1) (b) on the basis of the police report and issue process: this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the Police in their report: (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.”
The position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (JT 1989 (1) SC 308). The earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh (AIR 1977 SC 2401) was approved and followed. In Tula Ram’s case after considering the entire case law the following legal propositions have been settled:
1. That a Magistrate can order investigation under Section 156(3) only at pre-cognizance stage, that is to say, before taking cognizance under Sections 190, 200 and 204 and where a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter 14 he is not entitled in law to order any investigation under Section 156(3) though in cases not falling within the proviso to Section 202 he can order an investigation by the police which would be in the nature of an enquiry as contemplated by Section 202 of the Code.
2. Where a Magistrate chooses to take cognizance he can adopt any of the following alternatives: (a) He can peruse the complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straightway issue process to the accused but before he does so he must comply with the requirements of Section 200 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses.
(b) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by himself.
(c) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by any other person or an investigation by the police.
3. In case the Magistrate after considering the statement of the complainant and the witnesses or as a result of the investigation and the enquiry ordered is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can dismiss the complaint.
4. Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police before taking cognizance under Section 156(3) of the Code and receives the report thereupon he can act on the report and discharge the accused or straightway issue process against the accused or apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action under Section 190 as described above.
16. In the light of the settled legal positions enumerated earlier the challenge against the order of learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences has to be considered. When the original complaint was received the learned Magistrate ordered investigation as provided under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, Police submitted a refer report under Section 173(2). Though learned Magistrate did not issue a notice to the informant, the informant on his own appeared and contended that the final report may not be accepted and cognizance of the offence may be taken. The learned Magistrate clubbed the said complaint along with the final report and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and his witness took cognizance of the offences. The Magistrate has taken cognizance not on the report submitted by the Police but on the complaint. Though it is not specifically recorded that the refer report was not accepted, when the complaint and the refer report were considered together and cognizance was taken on the complaint, it is implied. Failure to pass a specific order to that effect is not fatal when order shows that cognizance was taken on the complaint. It is clear that refer report was not accepted. The Magistrate is competent to take cognizance on the original complaint even at that stage. Even if Magistrate had accepted the report, which is not the case herein, it will not prohibit the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the offence on a complaint filed and is satisfied on the materials produced that cognizance of the offence has to be taken. In such circumstances, the challenge raised in the Revision Petition can only be rejected. Advocate Sri. T.G. Rajendran also argued that the allegation in the complaint which was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate shows that in violation of the F.E.M.A. rules money was transferred outside India and it is illegal and unlawful and therefore learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence. At the threshold, it is not possible to quash the complaint or the proceeding and thereby stifle the prosecution unless the complaint is an abuse of the process of the Court or the allegation in the complaint does not reveal ingredients of any of the offences. On going through the complaint, I do not find that this is an exceptional case warranting an interference at the threshold of the prosecution.
Criminal Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.