MARIYAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam in C.M.P.No.6278 of 2019 dated 22.10.2018 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

(2.) The learned Magistrate has observed in his order that age of the accused and father's name of the accused are not specified. It is also observed that the place and time of occurrence have not been mentioned in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has further observed that neither the place of occurrence nor the place of money transaction is within the jurisdiction of the court. The learned Magistrate further went on to add that no specific overt act was attributed to the respondents 1, 3 and 4/R3, R5 and R6 herein to attract any offence. Ultimately, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, dismissed the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which is the subject matter of the present criminal revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the learned Magistrate appears to have not applied his mind to the averments made in the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C . In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has mentioned all the details of transaction which took place between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 6/A1 to A4. Unfortunately, the learned Judicial Magistrate over looked all the facts and simply dismissed the petition.