Judgment : The revision filed under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the complainant first witness arises in view of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pattukottai made in Crl.M.P.No. 5802 of 1992 dated 20th January, 1993 relating to a pending case in P.R.C.No.9of 1992 on his file, whereby he has decided that the accused by name Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali need not be added as accused in the above Preliminary Register Case as there was no incriminating materials of any kind found against them and that therefore felt further that the said persons need not be summoned. 2. Brief facts of the case of the revision petitioner, which led to the filing of the revision petition are stated as follows: The revision petitioner herein and the witnesses examined by the Police in the above case involved are the residents of Adhiramapattinam situated in East Tanjore District, within the jurisdiction of Adhiramapattinam Police Station which is now in charge of the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Law and Order. The revision petitioner is a resident of Pudhumanai Street situated in the said Adhiramapattinam town. It appears further that there was a dispute between the residents of Pudhumanai Street and Mela Street over a prayer to be held and performed in the mosque. The deceased and the revision petitioner and almost all the witnesses involved in this case are all Muslims by religion and among whom the deceased by name Abbas Hajiar was claimed to be the Secretary of Samsul Islam Society and the residents of Mela Street were opposed to him in respect of a dispute arising out of a prayer held in the mosque. It appears further that among the residents of the Muslim Community of the said place, there emerged a quarrel among themselves in connection with an incident in which a boy was beaten by some boys while playing a football match in the said town prior to the occurrence and that in connection with the same the elders in the Muslim Community, namely, the residents of the two streets were actually involved in mutual bickerings and wordy clashes. It is thus seen that a chronic rivalry existed among the members of the Muslim Community living in two streets in the Adhiramapattinam village prior to the occurrence. 3. It is thus seen that a chronic rivalry existed among the members of the Muslim Community living in two streets in the Adhiramapattinam village prior to the occurrence. 3. In this backdrop on 14-5-1992 at about 7.30 p.m. due to the prior enmity between the two groups of the Adhiramapattinam village, a violent occurrence had taken place, in which, one Haji Abbas popularly called as Abbas Hajiar, the Secretary of the Samsul Islam Society was beaten by several persons with sticks and sustained injuries. Subsequently, though he was taken to one Shiba Nursing Home and given first aid, he was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the same night. Alter his death, the revision petitioner herein being a resident of Pudhumanai Street in Adhiramapattinam, scene village lodged a written complaint before the S.I. of police, Adhiramapattinam Police Station, against seven named persons at about 9 a.m. on 15. 1992. The said complaint has been registered in Adhiramapattinam Police.Sta-tion Crime number 279/92 for the offences under Secs. 147, 341, 323 and 302, I.P.C The written complaint registered as above referred, refers to the seven persons as accused, who are the following: 1. M.M.S.Abdul Wahab, 2. Sikkanthar, 3. Sikkanthar, 4. Sheik Hadi, 5. Sulaiman, 6. Anwar, and 7. Ashraf Ali. The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai, who was in charge of the Adhiramapattinam Police Station subsequent to the day of occurrence, took up the investigation in the above case and held inquest on the next day as per the requisition by the doctor by examining witnesses including the ocular witnesses. During inquest, revision petitioner who claims to have seen the occurrence proper including two more witnesses by name Hanush and Sheikh Hadi Syed were also examined and their statements recorded. During inquest, revision petitioner who claims to have seen the occurrence proper including two more witnesses by name Hanush and Sheikh Hadi Syed were also examined and their statements recorded. It appears from the complaint given by the revision petitioner and his statement during inquest that it was his consistent claim that the first accused M.M.S.Abdul Wahab instigated the other accused to beat the deceased Abbas Hajiar and accordingly the rest of the accused beat him with wooden sticks indiscriminately, but however, the other two witnesses examined during the inquest at the same time and at the same place had a different version to the effect that the said so-called first accused was not at all present at the scene of occurrence, so also, Ashraf Ali, the seventh accused was also absent in the scene of occur-renceat the time alleged. Instead the other two eye witnesses and other eye witnesses added two more persons by name one Mohammed Idris and one Nizar Mohammed and thus including the said two, seven accused indulged in assaulting the deceased with wooden sticks instigated by Sikkanthar the first accused ranked in the charge-sheet. The said Sikkanthar was found as accused number 2 in the first information report. It also transpires that the verdict of the panchayatdars and the inquest report concludes that the deceased Abbas Hajiar was done to death as a result of the assault by A-2 to A-6 named in the F.I.R. but with the said Mohammed Idris and Nizar Mohammed also, but certainly not by M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali as claimed by the revision petitioner in the first information report and the statement recorded by the Inspector of Police. So to say in short, though as many as 31 witnesses were examined by investigating agency in this case including the doctors and recorded their statements none of the witnesses had either implicated or even referred the names of M.M.S. Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali except the complainant/revision petitioner herein, who happened to lodge the complaint and who was examined during the inquest as one of the witnesses. 4. This apart, during investigation one Hanush and Sheik Hadi claiming to be the ocular witnesses were also examined and their statements were recorded by the Inspector of Police. 4. This apart, during investigation one Hanush and Sheik Hadi claiming to be the ocular witnesses were also examined and their statements were recorded by the Inspector of Police. While the said investigation was going on, apprehending that the investigating officer may not do the investigation so effectively but fearing that some real witnesses were left out and that the investigation may not be conducted on the proper lines, a petition was filed by the revision petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14764 of 1992 in this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent power of this Court seeking a direction that the investigation of the case in hand were to be taken away from the respondent herein and handed over to the Crime Branch, C.I.D. From the records, however, it appears that Mohamed Yasin alias Sheik Hadi, the fourth accused as per the first information report filed a Crl.M.P.No.8197 of 1992 seeking to implead himself in the main petition and this Court by its order dated 12. 1992 impleaded him as the third respondent. 5. After hearing the respective parties and their contentions submitted on their behalf by the respective counsel, basing upon the legal ratio enunciated by the Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1285, a learned single Judge of this Court Padmini Jesudurai, J. while narrating and detailing the reasonings and observations in order to facilitate an opportunity to be provided to the complainant, had rejected the said petition but however, directed the matter to be disposed of once again by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pattukottai, in the following words: "As to whether a Magistrate is to take cognizance against a particular accused or not is entirely within his discretion based upon the materials placed before him. This Court cannot interfere in that decision making process of the learned Magistrate. In the instant case, since the petitioner who is the complainant and who has given the First Information Report desires that he should be heard before the learned Magistrate accepts the final report filed by the respondent which impliedly refers the case against A-1 and A-7 as ‘mistake of fact’, the learned Magistrate before proceeding further with the committal enquiry shall hear the petitioner regarding the deletion of A-1 and A-7 mentioned by him in the First Information Report. Since the petitioner has filed this petition in this Court before the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and since the petitioner wants to appear before the learned Magistrate, he is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 1. 1993. The learned Magistrate shall afford him an opportunity to put forth his objections and the learned Magistrate shall proceed according to law. This petition is ordered accordingly." 6. Thus, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14764 of 1992 on 112. 1992, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pattukottai has taken up the case again on his file, issued process to the revision petitioner herein to give evidence or file objections if any with regard to the charge-sheet filed in Adhiramapattinam Police Station Crime Number 279 of 1992 on his file. Accordingly, the complainant/revision petitioner herein. The petitioner has appeared before the learned Magistrate and submitted a written objection through his lawyer, as evident from the typed set filed on behalf of the revision petitioner herein. 7. To appreciate the relevancy of the points involved in this case, extraction of the contentions in that written objection has become highly necessary which are stated as follows: "It was stated by the revision petitioner that there is a long standing dispute between the persons in Mela Street and Pudhumanai Street regarding Jumma Prayer. The deceased Abbas Hajiar was admitted as the Secretary of Samsul Islam Society of Adhiramapattinam and who was opposed by the residents of Mela Street with regard to the Jumma Prayer dispute. M.M.S. Abdul Wahab, a resident of Mela Street is actually representing the residents of Mela Street in respect of the said dispute. At about 7.30 p.m. on 15. 1992 while the revision petitioner was proceeding towards the house of the deceased Abbas Hajiar at Pudhumanai Street, the following persons, 1. Sikkandar; 2. Sikkandar, S/o,Satti Majeed; 3. Meera Sahib, S/o.Sheik Hadi; 4. Sulaiman, S/o.Thiyagi Ibrahim; 5. Anwar, S/o.Kudbudin; 6. Asrafaii, S/o.Abdul Majeed came under the leadership of M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and that all the said accused surrounded the deceased and the abovesaid M.M.S.Abdul Wahab instigated others by saying “he is the person creating troubles and problems in the village and kill him”. Sikkandar; 2. Sikkandar, S/o,Satti Majeed; 3. Meera Sahib, S/o.Sheik Hadi; 4. Sulaiman, S/o.Thiyagi Ibrahim; 5. Anwar, S/o.Kudbudin; 6. Asrafaii, S/o.Abdul Majeed came under the leadership of M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and that all the said accused surrounded the deceased and the abovesaid M.M.S.Abdul Wahab instigated others by saying “he is the person creating troubles and problems in the village and kill him”. It was followed by the other accused who were armed with wooden stick beat him repeatedly on his head, left ear, nose, back and on his legs asking whether he was going to conduct Jumma prayer at Mohideen Appa Pallivasal. This objection further reveals that the said occurrence was witnessed by one Sheik Hadi, S/o.Aliyar of Pudhu-mani Street and one Anus, S/o.Seyyadu Mohamed Labbai and other persons. Soon after the occurrence, the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab along with his henchmen and other accused ran away from the scene with their weapon of offence and that the deceased was taken to Sheefa Hospital and from there he was taken to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur and that the revision petitioner had also gone there and by that time, he died and that thereafter, he returned from Thanjavur and gave a report in the morning at 9 a.m. on 15. 1992 before Sub Inspector of Police, Adhi-ramapattinam. He registered the case in Crime No.239/92 for the offences under Secs.341, 147, 323 and 302, I.P.C. It was contended in the said objection further that the first accused named in the F.I.R. M.M.S.Abdul Wahab is a very influential person and is the brother of M.M.S.Abdul Hasan, M.L.A. from Mayiladuthurai Constitutency, absconding from the scene of occurrence exercised his political influence and giving pressure to the police hampering the investigation and spoiling the actual case against the actual culprits and as a result of which, the Inspector of Police, wantonly and deliberately omitted the incriminating statements given against M.M.S.Abdul Wahab in order to enable him to escape from the clutches of law, right from the beginning and as a result of which, the respondent/police are suppressing deliberately material particulars which require to implicate the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and the said Ashraf Ali but however added one Mohammed Idris and Nizar with an ulterior motive with a view to discredit the entire prosecution case. He has submitted further that the respondent had not even arrested all the persons mentioned in the F.I.R. and has not raised his little finger to arrest the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali, which shows that they are such influential persons. He would submit further that in spite of the threat, coercion and compulsion, he had given a clear and categoric statement to the Inspector of Police who has recorded his statement under Sec.161, Crl.P.C. implicating M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and other six persons mentioned in the F.I.R. but he would submit further that the respondent has not recorded the actual statements from other witnesses but deliberately omitted certain incrimi-natingstatements given by the witnesses involving the abovesaid two persons. The statements recorded underSec.161,Crl.P.C. would clearly show the omissions made by the respondent and that there was a long standing dispute between the persons of Mela Street and Pudhumani Street regarding Jumma Prayer, which provides a strong motive for the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali to get involved in this violent occurrence. He would further submit that the respondent herein with the actual collusion of the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Pichai Pillai,who got the first information report and registered the same, recorded his statement to the extent that the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab was with him at about 7.30 p.m. on 15. 1992 and that such a statement was recorded by him three days later, after the occurrence, namely on 15. 1992, which was the result and influence and pressure given by the said persons. Therefore, according to the revision petitioner, it was strange that the Sub Inspector of Police who received the first information report and registered the case but however had not arrested the said person in spite of the statement given under Sec.161, Crl.P.C. though the said person was very much alive on 15. 1992. Therefore, it was the main contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent has not recorded the real statements given by the witnesses but however omitted the portions of the real statements given by them when he recorded the same under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He would further submit that if really M.M.S.Abdul Wahab was present at the police station on 15. 1992 at 7.30 p.m. with the Sub Inspector of Police, the same Sub Inspector of Police might have refused to register the case against M.M.S.Abdul Wahab. He would further submit that if really M.M.S.Abdul Wahab was present at the police station on 15. 1992 at 7.30 p.m. with the Sub Inspector of Police, the same Sub Inspector of Police might have refused to register the case against M.M.S.Abdul Wahab. By stating so, he would allege that the Sub Inspector of Police has come forward with a false statement to safeguard M.M.S.Abdul Wahab from getting himself involved in this case by suppressing the fact and that therefore, the respondent herein deliberately deleted the abovesaid two persons in the charge-sheet filed before the court below. Then citing a case law M/s.India Carat Private Limited v. State of Karna-taka, A.I.R 1989 S.C. 885:1989 Crl.L.J. 963: (1989)1 J.T. 308 : (1989)2 S.C.C. 132 :1989A.P.L.J. (Crl.) 71:I.L.R. 1989 Karn. 1486: (1989)2 Crimes 483, which emphasises the following observation namely: “Upon receipt of police report under Sec.l73(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Sec.l90(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statement of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Sec.l90(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts, emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit in exercise of his powers under Sec.l90(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Secs.200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Sec.l90(1)(a), though it is open to him to act under Sec.200 or Sec.202 also.” the revision petitioner states that there are enough, adequate and clinching materials available on the record itself for taking cognizance of the case against the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali and that therefore, the objections above referred were placed before the learned Magistrate again for reconsideration as per the directions given by this Court by its order dated 112. 1992. 1992. 8. It is seen from the case records that though objection has been filed on behalf of the revision petitioner before the learned Magistrate pursuant to the directions given by this Court by Padmini Jesudurai, J. as above referred, it is significant to note that the revision petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate nor produced any eye witnesses or witnesses to substantiate his allegations or his case in specific, but nonetheless, the learned Magistrate has considered the said objection and the facts leading to this revision after hearing both sides through their respective counsel and their submissions, and finally rejected the relief claimed by the revision petitioner as well as the objections filed on behalf of the revision petitioner herein. It was the specific finding of the learned Magistrate that there exists no need to issue process to M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali and to add them as A-1 and A-7 nor to delete the two persons who were added as accused after full investigation. Aggrieved at this order, petitioner namely the objector/complainant has preferred the above revision once again by coming to this Court. .9. Invoking the inherent powers of this Court provided under Sec.402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the above revision, the persons who were sought to be included as A-1 and A-7 by name M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali, filed a petition Crl.M.P.No.1836 of 1993 to get themselves impleaded in the revision upon alleging the same facts but however, attributing strong motive and enmity to the complainant and the statement given by the revision petitioner herein to implicate them falsely and contending that they apprehend that if the revision is allowed, they would be put to every prejudice and that therefore, they are to be heard by adding them as necessary parties in this revision so as to enable them to demonstrate their case before this Court and to the said effect in the said application they require them to be impleaded as parties with an opportunity for them to explain their case. 10. 10. In the counter statement filed on behalf of the revision petitioner herein as respondent number 2 in the said petition, it was contended inter alia that the said impleading petition itself is not maintainable and particularly in paras 5 and 6 it is stated that the stage for the petitioners to be heard has not yet been reached and that the revision is between the second respondent and the first respondent and that therefore, they are not the necessary parties. Even so, it was contended that the omission of the petitioners in the above Crl.M.P. in the charge-sheet taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate in P.R.C.No.9 of 1992 amounts to an implied discharge and that therefore, the accused, namely the petitioners would have no locus standi prior to the process issued against them. It was further contended that if they are impleaded, it will only hamper the progress of the trial of the case. By contending so, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition for impleading the petitioners, namely the omitted accused. 11. In the light of the points involved in this revision and the Crl.M.P. which are between the same parties and involves a common question for consideration, with the consent of the Bar, both are disposed of by this common order. .12. Mr.Asokan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the revision petition and the second respondent in the Crl.M.P. drew my attention while canvassing the grounds of revision, that the written complaint given by the revision petitioner at about 9 a.m.on 15. .12. Mr.Asokan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the revision petition and the second respondent in the Crl.M.P. drew my attention while canvassing the grounds of revision, that the written complaint given by the revision petitioner at about 9 a.m.on 15. 1992 at Adhiramapattinam Police Station which was registered under crime No.279 of 1992 by the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Pitchai Pillai, clearly discloses the specific overt acts of the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali, who figured as A-1 and A-7and that similarly, after the case was registered and taken up for investigation by the Inspector of Police, Pattukot-tai, who is incharge of the said case, when examined the complainant and recorded his statement under Sec.l61(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the said two persons were very much involved added with their respective overt acts and that therefore when the complaint was registered in the concerned police station and taken up for investigation, the said accused ought to have been apprehended by the police concerned in accordance with the due process of law and the total inaction on the part of the investigating agency clearly demonstrates the fact that the investigating agency is taking a partisan attitude and not investigated the case properly, with the result, both the above two persons have been omitted and instead two more persons were substituted in the charge-sheet filed before the learned Magistrate and that this factum has not been considered by the learned Magistrate in its proper legal perspective and that therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is arbitrary and liable to be interfered with. 13. But in so far as petition to implead is concerned, it was the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that they are unnecessary parties and that they have no locus standi to get themselves impleaded in this revision, since they were not included in the charge-sheet in question nor any process was issued to them as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned counsel would apprehend that if in case they are impleaded it would hamper the proceedings of the case further. 14.Per contra, I have heard Mr. R. Shanmugha-sundaram, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.l836 of 1993. 14.Per contra, I have heard Mr. R. Shanmugha-sundaram, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.l836 of 1993. He contended very strenuously that in the interests of justice, the petitioners are to be heard by providing them an opportunity, in the sense that if the revision is allowed, it was the petitioners who would get affected seriously and that in view of the strong motive which developed in the mind of the revision petitioner, a concerted attempt was made by him to rope the petitioners in this case falsely and that therefore, to have a complete adjudication of the matter in accordance with the procedural law, they are deemed to be necessary parties and accordingly they are to be impleaded. Mr.S.Shanmughavelayudham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent in the revision would submit that mere receipt of a written complaint but though registered as crime number of a case in a particular station with several names found referred to therein, does not mean automatically that such of the persons are to be deemed as accused in the case and they are to be charge-sheeted consequently and that what is more required according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that statement of witnesses and the like materials provided by the Code and the law has to be gathered and made available during the investigation to rope any person whose name was referred to in the so-called first information report and only on such finding and conclusion, the investigating agency can file the final report against them in the court of law. On scanning the entire materials as provided under Sec.190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate if he is satisfied fully has to take cognizance of the offence against such of the persons and thereby frame the charge and if not, the Magistrate is fully empowered to alter or amend the charge filed, on the materials filed by the investigating agency. Accordingly, the case in hand has been investigated by the Inspector of Police, namely, witness number 32, who is the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai town actually incharge of the Adhiramapattinam Police Station. Accordingly, the case in hand has been investigated by the Inspector of Police, namely, witness number 32, who is the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai town actually incharge of the Adhiramapattinam Police Station. By saying so, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that even after the enquiry conducted by the learned Magistrate pursuant to the order passed by this Court, it was found that nothing was found against the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali except the interested implication of the revision petitioner herein though belatedly and that therefore nothing was available to add them as accused in the above preliminary register case and the learned Magistrate found that there existed no need to summon them. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the revision has no merits and that it is liable to be rejected and that the proceedings initiated in this Court would hamper the progress of the trial in this case though the occurrence had taken place as early as on 15. 1992. 15. In the light of the rival contentions above referred, the following questions arise for consideration: .(i) Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.5802 of 1992 dated 20.1.1993 is vitiated with any irregularity, impropriety or illegality and liable to be interfered with in this revision? .(ii) Whether the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.1836 of 1993 are the necessary parties entitled to be impleaded as the respondents in this revision? Points 1 & 2: The alleged fact that at about 7.30 p.m. on 15. 1992 in Pudhumanai Street, in Adhiramapattinam, the deceased Abbas Hajiar was attacked by number of persons and consequently he was taken to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon his body on the same night and that the matter was reported to the concerned Adhiramapattinam Police Station and the complaint was registered in Crime number 279/92 by the Sub Inspector of Police by name Pitchai Pillai and that subsequently, the investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai circle in accordance with the procedure and law and that finally, final report was sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pattukottai after completion of the investigation and that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and taken the preliminary revision case on file are not disputed. The grievance expressed by the revision petitioner is that the persons by name M.M.S. Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali accused number 1 and 7 in the first information report were dropped by the investigating agency while filing the final report and instead, the names of two other persons were substituted on the basis of the so-called investigation done by witness number 32, namely, the Inspector of Police. He would further express his grievance that though the names of the said two persons were referred in the written complaint, first information report none of the fingers of the investigating agency was raised against the said persons during the course of the investigation, which shows demonstrably that the investigating agency is clearly in support of and hand in glove with the said two persons and that the addition of two more persons in their place is a mere mockery and make believe, to scuttle down the entire prosecution case before the court of law. The said contentions were repudiated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor by contending that with the strong motive and enmity in connection with some other civil dispute and other instances that happened previously, the revision petitioner is bent upon roping the said persons, namely, M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali in this murder case and thereby get himself benefited for his own ulterior purpose and that the investigation was done in consonance with the procedural law and that as no materials or evidence was available to rope them in the case, the learned Magistrate was perfectly correct in holding that the said two persons cannot be added as accused and as such, no process can be issued against them. 16. I have meticulously scanned the entire statements of nearly 32 witnesses recorded by the investigating agency under Sec.161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case in crime number 279/92 of Adhiramapattinam Police Station. It is seen that the eye witnesses to the occurrence proper as alleged by the revision petitioner were examined and their statements were recorded and among whom some of them were also examined during the inquest held over the dead body of Abbas Hajiar at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. It is seen that the eye witnesses to the occurrence proper as alleged by the revision petitioner were examined and their statements were recorded and among whom some of them were also examined during the inquest held over the dead body of Abbas Hajiar at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Except the first information report given by the revision petitioner and his statement recorded under Sec.161(3), Crl.P.C. during inquest, none of the other eye-witness nearly about 4 in number, bring out any material or evidence to riculpate the said two persons namely, M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali. That apart, the Sub Inspector of Police of Adhiramapattinam Police Station, on the day of occurrence by name Pitchai Pillai, who was examined by Inspector of Police under Sec.161 (3), Crl.P.C, was so categoric in absolving by claiming that the said two persons during the time of occurrence were with him. In this context, the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.1836 of 1993 assumes much significance and much force. If several witnesses have claimed to have witnessed the occurrence proper, one would normally expect that they would speak about the overt acts of all the persons concerned if not so accurately but atleast by referring their names. But as was rightly held by the learned Magistrate, no material was placed before the learned Magistrate to implicate the said two persons in this murder case as accused number 1 and 7. Pursuant to the direction by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14764 of 1992 on 15.12/1992, the learned Magistrate issued process to the revision petitioner and accordingly, he has filed his written objections through his counsel but significantly, he has produced no further materials or evidence to show that the investigating agency has played a partisan role with a view to help the said petitioner herein, namely the two dropped accused. If the contention of the revision petitioner is that the names of two persons who were referred to by all the prosecution witnesses while examined by the police, but the police had not included and omitted their names deliberately, then one would expect that the revision petitioner would bring the said witnesses who were examined by the police to the court and give evidence that their statements have not been properly recorded by the police during investigation and that aspect is very much silent and absent in this case. Nothing can be attributed against the attitude of the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Pitchai Pillai for having not refused to register the complaint when it was lodged at about 9 a.m. on 15. 1992 by the revision petitioner for the simple reasoning that if any written complaint is given alleging the commission of a cognizable offence under Sec.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was his duty to register the same and proceed in accordance with law but it has to be seen however that he has not investigated the case and the investigation was done only by the Inspector of Police, Pattukottai, who had examined all the eyewitnesses and other witnesses totalling about nearly 31 and completed the investigation. It cannot be said that because the name of a person has been referred to in the First Information Report, he should be arrested by the Police. During the investigation, if the Police is satisfied on the available materials that other persons are also involved in the crime and for sufficient reasons as contemplated under Sec.157 Crl.P.C, they can arrest such of the persons. Therefore, failure to refuse to register the first information report on the basis that the said M.M.S.Abdul Wahab was talking with him at the time of occurrence as stated by him, would not by any means make the investigating agency to arrest him and that is not proper in accordance with law. Thus, having considered the entire reasoning given by the learned Magistrate, who had taken cognizance of the offences against the persons whose names were found place in the final report and rejecting to issue process to M.M.S.Abdul Wahab and Ashraf Ali is fully correct, in my firm view, and was totally in accordance with the procedural law with the correct appreciation of facts by the learned Magistrate. It is the well-settled principle of law that though Police are entitled to investigate the entire case and place all the materials before the Court, the Court, while taking cognizance of the said offences under various charges is fully empowered to look into every one of the materials and has to satisfy itself with the incriminating portion of the materials are available against such of the persons against whom the final report is filed. With regard to the said principle, there cannot be two views. With regard to the said principle, there cannot be two views. Therefore, keeping in ratio with the said principle, the learned Magistrate has provided an opportunity once again to the revision petitioner herein, who was heard with every written objection and after considering the same fully had disposed his claims in accordance with law. It is thus made clear that the impugned order under this revision bears no illegality or impropriety or laches of any kind as alleged by the revision petitioner. The substitution of two more persons by the investigating staff and taken cognizance of by the court was fully in consonance with the Procedural Law purely based upon the materials and evidence collected by the investigating staff. For the opinion of my above reasonings and since I do not come across any legal infirmity or illegally or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, 1 am not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the revision is hereby rejecied. 17. In the light of my clear and specific finding and firm view given above, I feel that disposing of the petition Crl.M.P.No.1836 of 1993 separately has become unnecessary and accordingly, it is dismissed. 18. In the result, the revision fails and accordingly dismissed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.5802 of 1992 dated 20.1.1993 is hereby maintained.