JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against order dated 09.01.2018 in C.M.P.No.5053 of 2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.) This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 09.01.2018 passed in C.M.P.No.5053 of 2017. 2. The above order of the learned Magistrate has been filed, accepting the report submitted by the respondent police dated 21.08.2017 on a complaint forwarded to them under an order of the learned Magistrate dated 17.07.2017. The petitioner has filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate and sought a prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate was also pleased to forward the said complaint to the police for taking action on the same. The said order dated 17.07.2017 reads as under: “Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. On perusal of the entire averments, it is purely quasi civil in nature. Hence, it is just and necessary this application to be forwarded to the Station House Officer and the Station House Officer is directed to make preliminary enquiry in this complaint. If the cognizable is made out to proceed in accordance with law.” 3. In compliance of the above order, a report has been sent by the police. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of registering a First Information Report as per the order of the learned Magistrate, the police had proceeded to make a formal enquiry and submitted a report stating that the matter is “civil in nature” and the learned Magistrate has also accepted the said report and closed the complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 in support of his contention that if the Magistrate Court even if the order of the Magistrate does not say whether the First Information Report should be registered on the complaint forwarded by him the very forwarding implies that First Information Report should be registered and it has to be investigated. The relevant portion of the above case reads as under: “12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan this Court observed: (SCC p.631, para 11) “11. The relevant portion of the above case reads as under: “12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan this Court observed: (SCC p.631, para 11) “11. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station a indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.” 5. On perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, it is seen that there is a mention about a preliminary enquiry. If the Magistrate is not satisfied with the compliance report, he can very well reject the same. Once, the complaint is forwarded to the police for enquiry under the order of the Magistrate, the police has a duty to register a First Information Report and then only to proceed further. It is up to the investigation officer to file a report either or not in favour of the complainant. It depends on the materials, he could get during the investigation. It is equally so for the Court to accept or not the report so filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. 6. But, in the case on hand, it is seen that the respondents have not attached the statement of the witnesses along with the report stating that the matter is civil in nature. Even if it is true that the matter involves civil transaction, in order to find out whether there is any criminal offence committed during the civil transaction, an elaborate enquiry may be needed. Even if it is true that the matter involves civil transaction, in order to find out whether there is any criminal offence committed during the civil transaction, an elaborate enquiry may be needed. Hence only with such supporting materials, the final report can be filed to the Court. The respondent Police did not register an F.I.R., and investigate and supporting materials also not submitted to the Magistrate. Under such circumstances, the Magistrate has opted to send the complaint to the respondent Police for enquiry. So it implies that the respondent Police ought to register F.I.R., and start their enquiry only thereafter. 7. In view of the above reason, I feel that the order dated 09.01.2018 passed in C.M.P.No.5053 of 2017, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, dated 09.01.2018, in C.M.P.No.5053 of 2017 is set aside. The respondent police is directed to register the First Information Report on the complaint filed by the complainant and proceed in accordance with law.