Challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai, in C.M.P.No.2912 of 2016 dated 07.12.2016, filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner, who is an advocate, earlier filed a private complaint stating that on 24.02.2016, at about 6.30 p.m., the first respondent herein came to his office and abused him in filthy language on the ground that the petitioner has misappropriated her money. The court below, after considering the complaint and sworn statement and the evidence, dismissed the complaint holding that even though the occurrence took place on 24.02.2016, the petitioner being an advocate, did not made any complaint against the respondents and apart from that on the material produced by the petitioner, no primafacie case has been made out to take cognizance. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.A.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and I have carefully considered the materials available on record.
4. The court below, after carefully considering the complaint and sworn statement and other evidence, came to a conclusion that no prima facie case has been made out to take cognizance of the complaint. I find no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the court below.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.
08.03.2017 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No mrp To The Judicial Magistrate I, Thiruvannamalai.
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.,
mrp
Crl.R.C.No.389 of 2017
08.03.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in