1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 13.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

Crl.RC(MD)No.262 of 2021

P.Varkeeshraja : Petitioner/Petitioner/De-facto
Complainant

Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
West Police Station,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.568 of 2017) : R1/R1/Complainant

2.N.Nagarajan : R2/R2/Accused

Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401

& 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, against the order,
dated 30.09.2020 made in Cr.MP No.1402 of 2020 in Crime No.568
of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Prakash

for Mr.S.Saravanan

For 1st Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman

Counsel for State Government
(Criminal side)

For 2nd Respondent : Mr.S.Vaigunth

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
 2

ORDER

This Criminal Revision is filed against the order, dated

30.09.2020 made in Cr.MP No.1402 of 2020 in Crime No.568 of

2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is a Private Carriage

Driver and one Nagarajan, who is the 2nd respondent herein is

exporting manpower to abroad in the name of VISAKAN TRAVELS.

The petitioner approached him for job, for which he gave Rs.

75,000/-, on 16.06.2017. The 2nd respondent/A2 had given

assurance to the petitioner that the monthly salary would be Rs.

25,000/- with food and accommodation and job only for eight hours.

On 13.07.2017, the petitioner went to Malaysia and joined the

office of one Mr.Ramani as Driver. But in Malaysia, there was a

dispute between Ramani and the petitioner. The petitioner reported

the matter to Kolalambur Police, Malaysia and FIR was registered

and thereafter, the petitioner returned back to India and made a

complaint to the 1st respondent police, on 29.08.2017 against the

2nd respondent. But they did not register case. Subsequently, on

the direction by the Court, FIR was registered in Crime No.568 of

2017, on 08.11.2017 against the said Nagarajan for the offence

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
 3

under sections 406, 417, 420, 371 and 374 IPC. Thereafter, the 1st

respondent filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Kovilpatti, closing the FIR in Crime No.568 of 2017 as “Action

Dropped”. Against which, the petitioner filed a protect petition in

C.MP No.1402 of 2020 in Crime No.568 of 2017 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti. The learned Magistrate, by

order, dated 30.09.2020 dismissed the said petition. Challenging

the said order, the petitioner is before this court.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials available on record.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/de-

facto complainant argued that the final report is illegal, erroneous

and un-sustainable in law and the Investigation Officer failed to

appreciate the scope of fair investigation in a proper perspective

manner, when the de-facto complainant produced relevant

documents and eye witness by way of evidence to substantiate his

allegations and the Investigation Officer failed to enquire about the

FIR filed in Malaysia as against one Ramani under which the

petitioner/de-facto complainant worked as “Driver” and the 2nd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
 4

respondent/accused only sent the de-facto complainant to the said

Ramani and the 2nd respondent/A2 has no Government Licence to

export manpower to abroad and also did not produce any Licence in

respect of Coal Import business and no valid reasons were given by

the trial court for dismissal of the protect petition filed by the

petitioner and there was prima facie case made out as against the

accused and prays for allowing the Criminal Revision.

5.On the other hand, on the side of the prosecution, it is

argued that the petitioner/de-facto complainant went to Malaysia

and joined duty in the office of one Ramani as a ''Driver'' and due to

dispute between the petitioner and the said Ramani, the

petitioner/de-facto complainant came to India and then, the

petitioner went to Malaysia and worked under Ramani and received

salary and hence, there is no question of cheating and criminal

breach of trust and in so far as section 371 of IPC is concerned, the

petitioner/de-facto complainant made only bald allegations against

the 2nd respondent and the non-examination of video CD and

translation in Malay language FIR are not fatal to the prosecution

case and only after perusing the records, the trial court correctly

closed the case on the basis of the final report and prays that the

Criminal Revision has to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
 5

6.The main contention of the petitioner/de-facto

complainant is that prima facie case is made out as against the 2 nd

respondent/accused and hence, the negative final report can not be

accepted. The petitioner/de-facto complainant stated that A2

knowingly sent him to Ramani and A2 had bad intention to cheat

him. Already the petitioner/de-facto complainant gave a complaint

as against the said Ramani, from whom he was sent for driving,

compelled him to do the work against his Will and FIR was

registered as against the said Ramani and is still pending in

Malaysia. Further, the petitioner stated in his complaint that the

accused had the habit of selling the person as salves and for that,

FIR was registered and the Investigating Officer filed this negative

final report.

7.On careful perusal of the records, it reveals that the de-

facto complainant was sent by the 2nd respondent/A2 to Malaysia to

work under one Ramani and the said Ramani appointed him as a

Driver. But the petitioner stated that the 2nd respondent/accused

sold him to Ramani as slaves and the said Ramani compelled him to

do the work against his Will. Hence, it reveals that the 2nd

respondent/A2 had bad intention to send the de-facto complainant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
 6

to Ramani as slaves and Ramani compelled him to do the work as

against his Will. Hence, it is held that prima facie case is made as

against the 2nd respondent/accused. Further, the petitioner/de-facto

complainant filed the protest petition, objecting the final report.

Hence, this court comes to the conclusion that the protest petition

can be treated as 200 Cr.P.C petition and further, the trial court

may be directed to proceed with the petition under section 200

Cr.P.C as per law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties

concerned.

8.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed. The

impugned order, dated 30.09.2020 made in Cr.M.P No.1402 of 2020

in Crime No.568 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Kovilpatti, is set aside. The protest petition filed by the petitioner

can be treated as the petition filed under 200 Cr.P.C and the trial

court is directed to proceed with the case, as petition filed under

section 200 Cr.PC, as per law, after giving reasonable opportunity

to the parties concerned.

13.09.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
 7

Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
 8

T.KRISHNAVALLI,J

er

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Kovilpatti.

2The Inspector of Police,

West Police Station,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

Crl.RC(MD)No.262 of 2021

13.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/