(1.) This Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner/accused against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing issuance of process in the final report filed by the Investigating Officer as to "mistake of fact" in the Protest Petition filed by the complainant.
(2.) Heard Mr. V. Sairam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/accused and Mr. T. Murugesan, learned senior Public prosecutor (Government of Pondicherry) appearing for the first Respondent. No appearance for the second Respondent, even though a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second Respondent/defacto complainant.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/accused would submit in his argument that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not correct in ordering issuance of process/summons to the Petitioner holding that a prima facie case has been made out as per the investigation report. He would further submit that except the one witness, the other witnesses examined by the investigating officer did not support the case of the complainant and therefore the lower court should not have laid reliance on the sole witness and to take cognizance of the offence. He would further submit in his argument that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court would repeatedly lay down that whether it is a Magistrate or a Court need not interfere in the findings arrived by the investigating officer done, during an investigation. He would also submit in his argument that the important witnesses who are belonging to the Scheduled Caste did not support the case of the complainant that the Petitioner scolded the complainant by using his caste name and thereby committed an offence under the PCR Act. He would further submit that the complainant had given a false complaint on an incident taken place on Siramadhanam day held on 06.01.2007 and thereafter, on 25.01.2007, since the Petitioner was very strict in her administrative works, the complainant, aggrieved by the promptness expected from him, in order to wreck vengeance against the Petitioner, his superior officer, had given the complaint and the said circumstances were considered by the Investigating Officer and found that the truth and genuineness of the complaint was not established and therefore, it was dropped as "mistake of fact", against which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Pondicherry) had taken cognizance, is contrary to law. He would further submit in his arguments that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the points raised in the Protest Petition, but had taken cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint and therefore, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has to be set aside and the Revision Case has to be allowed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police,, 2006 3 SCC(Cri) 245) in support of his argument to the point that the Court could interfere with the discretion of the Investigating Officers.