Judgment 1. This revision by the petitioner is directed against the order accepting the referred report by investigating agency as a ‘mistake of fact’. 2. Mr.N.T.Vanamamalai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the complainant filed an application for investigation under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C. the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the respondent to conduct investigation by registering a case and that without proper investigation the referred report was filed by the Central Crime Branch and that when the protest petition was filed by the complainant before the lower court as against the referred report, the further investigation was ordered by the Magistrate and that despite the said order the investigation was not properly conducted in the line as directed by the Magistrate and the final report had been filed, referring the matter as a mistake of fact and that the same was accepted by the learned Magistrate. 3. I have through the records and heard the counsel for the parties. It is seen from the records that the complainant initially filed a petition under Sec. 156(3), Crl.P.C. for investigation for referring the matter for investigation. As requested, direction was given. In pursuance of that direction, Central Crime Branch conducted investigation and filed referred report. In the protest petition filed by the complainant at that point of time he would state that the investigating agency have not examined the important witnesses in this case relating to two complaints and also have not perused the records available in the customs office as well as complainants office. Therefore further investigation was ordered, directing the respondent to make further investigation in the said line. It seems that in pursuance of the Government order, the investigation was handed over by the respondent Central Crime Branch to C.B., C.I.D., for making further investigation. The C.B., C.I.D. conducted further investigation by examining the witnesses and filed the reported stating again that the case was referred as a mistake of fact. This was accepted by the learned Magistrate by giving detailed reasons by passing an order. As against this, the present revision has been filed. 4. The C.B., C.I.D. conducted further investigation by examining the witnesses and filed the reported stating again that the case was referred as a mistake of fact. This was accepted by the learned Magistrate by giving detailed reasons by passing an order. As against this, the present revision has been filed. 4. It is clear that from the beginning the complainant had not chosen to request the court to take the case on file and conduct trial as a private complaint case, but requested for direction for the investigation to be conducted by the investigating agency in order to collect the materials to prove the case of the complainant. The records would reveal that initially when the referred report was filed, he asked for the further investigation and consequently, again investigation was ordered and the police again filed a report, referring the matter as mistake of fact. In the second protest petition also he had not thought it fit to request the court to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the private complaint under Sec.190(l)(a), Crl.P.C, but instead requested for yet another investigation. 5. In these circumstances, I cannot now direct the Magistrate to treat this original petition which was filed under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C. as a complaint and proceed with the case. The reasonings given in the impugned order, accepting the referred report also could not be said to be wrong because the Magistrate has gone thorough the report filed by the respondent and passed a detailed order. The question which was raised before the learned Magistrate is only whether to accept the referred report made by the investigating agency or to direct for further investigation. In the light of the above circumstances, I do not deem it fit either to direct the Magistrate to direct further investigation or to treat the original petition under Sec. 156(3) as a private complaint. Under these circumstances, this revision has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 6. After the pronouncement of the order, the counsel for the petitioner requests this court to give liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint in respect of the same accusation before the lower court. No liberty need be given to the petitioner, as there is no bar for filing a second complaint, as laid down by the Supreme Court. After the pronouncement of the order, the counsel for the petitioner requests this court to give liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint in respect of the same accusation before the lower court. No liberty need be given to the petitioner, as there is no bar for filing a second complaint, as laid down by the Supreme Court. It is settled law that the second complaint could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances and if a special case is made out. It is held in Pramatha Nath Talukdar and others v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar Pramatha Nath Talukdar and others v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 876: (1962)2S.C.J. 274, as follows: “An order of dismissal under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. is not bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances i.e., where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or where the facts could not be brought on record in spite of due diligence.” In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh , A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2432: (1977)1 S.C.C. 57 itis held thus: “Second complaint can lie only on fresh facts or even on the previous facts only if a special case is made out.” If the proposed second complaint comes under the above parameters, as laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, the second complaint is permissible. But, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the lower court by establishing a special case in order to maintain the second complaint.