S. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS second revision petition under section 397 read with sections 401/482 cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 19. 1. 2005 passed by the court of metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, dismissing petitioner s application under section 173 (8) of the Cr. P. C. seeking further investigation. Petitioner s first revision petition (Crl. Rev. P. 591/2005) against the same order came up for hearing before Hon ble Mr. Justice R. S. Sodhi on 3. 8. 2005. It was dismissed as withdrawn and the order reads as under: ?the petitioner who appears in person wishes to withdraw this petition. He is permitted to do so. Crl. Rev. P. 591/2005 is dismissed as withdrawn. ? ( 2 ) SHRI R. M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the CBI raised a preliminary objection submitting that the above petition is replica of the earlier revision petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 3. 8. 2005 by the petitioner and the second revision on the same facts is not maintainable. Elaborating the submissions learned counsel argued that limitation for filing the revision petition is 90 days; as per petitioner s own showing till date petitioner has not even applied for grant of certified copy of the impugned order and repeated filing of the revision petitions is an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel also argued that one petition filed by the petitioner [writ Petition (Crl.)No. 182/2004] in the Supreme Court raising similar issues, was dismissed on 12. 7. 2005. The petitioner has referred to the earlier order passed by the supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 16237 of 1998 decided on 13. 8. 1999 and has deliberately concealed the subsequent order of the Supreme Court passed in said writ Petition. It is an attempt to conceal material facts. ( 3 ) MR. K. VIDYA Sagar, petitioner appearing in person did not contest that earlier petition against the same impugned order was dismissed as withdrawn on 3. 8. 2005, however, he submitted that earlier petition was withdrawn to elaborate certain facts and grounds. On being asked, what are the fresh facts, it was pointed out that in the earlier petition, petitioner has stated that the CBI could not recover, most importantly, Court files of the petitioner belonging to his clients and now in the list of dates (22. 4. On being asked, what are the fresh facts, it was pointed out that in the earlier petition, petitioner has stated that the CBI could not recover, most importantly, Court files of the petitioner belonging to his clients and now in the list of dates (22. 4. 1999), it has been added that ?x, intermediate, B. Sc. , M. Sc. , LL. B. , original marks Lists and their respective degrees of the petitioner? could not be recovered by the CBI. It is also not in dispute that this petition was filed on 27. 10. 2005 and petitioner did not refer to the order passed by the Supreme Court in the writ petition on 12. 7. 2005 in K. Vidya Sagar Vs. State of U. P. and othes reported as (2005) 5 SCC 581 . ( 4 ) PETITIONER is a practicing advocate in the Supreme Court. Prosecution allegations are that he was a tenant in the premises No. B-99, sector-15, Noida on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-, which was owned by Smt. Tara Bhatt (Respondent no. 2 ). The lease was for 11 months, which contained a clause about the increase of 10% rent every year. Petitioner s case further is that he was in arrears of rent of Rs. 40,000/- only. He had prepared a demand draft of the said amount and sent photocopy of the same to the land-lady on 9. 5. 1998, stating that the draft can be delivered to her only if the electricity and water in the portion of the tenanted premises is restored. The same was not done and the rent was not paid. The land-lady s claim towards arrears of rent was Rs. 90,000/ -. The case of the petitioner further is that on 15. 5. 1998 petitioner left for his home town kakinada in Andhra Pradesh, after locking his premises; in his absence owner took possession of the same and petitioner was dispossessed. On his return, on 9. 7. 1999 petitioner lodged a report at P. S. : Noida, sector-20. Police investigated the matter and submitted the final report. Petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation and filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High court for transfer of the investigation from local police to the CBI, but he did not succeed. On his return, on 9. 7. 1999 petitioner lodged a report at P. S. : Noida, sector-20. Police investigated the matter and submitted the final report. Petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation and filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High court for transfer of the investigation from local police to the CBI, but he did not succeed. Petitioner filed a SLP in the Supreme Court and the investigations were transferred from the NOIDA police to the CBI, vide order dated 5. 2. 1999. Thereafter investigations were taken up by CBI and after completion of investigation it was found that accused D. N. Bhatt after breaking open the lock of the tenanted premises removed the household articles to village Chhalera, sector 44, NOIDA and it was further found that as the house stands in the name of Smt. Tara Bhatt wife of D. N. Bhatt (respondent no. 2), her involvement in the commission of crime is also prima facie made out. ( 5 ) IT was argued that D. N. Bhatt has died during the pendency of the proceedings. After investigations challan was filed in the CBI Court at Dehradun; and charge was framed. On an application moved by the petitioner, the case was transferred from Dehradun to courts at Delhi by the order of Supreme Court. Civil litigation between the parties is also pending. ( 6 ) PETITIONER was not satisfied with the investigation of the CBI and filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for directions like grant of damages, restoration of possession, action against the investigating officer of P. S. Noida, etc. On 23. 8. 2004 Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel was appointed as amicus curiae, and it was ordered:"the only grievance which we find worth being taken care of and as highlighted by the learned amicus curiae is the remissness on the part of the police officials concerned in investigating FIR No. 521/98 lodged on 9. 7. 1998 at 2. 50 p. m. at P. S. Sector -20, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh. " ( 7 ) THE inquiries were ordered to be conducted against the police official of noida, who had initially investigated the matter. Superintendent of Police, meerut had submitted the report. The report was considered by Supreme Court. It was ordered as under:-"12. 7. 1998 at 2. 50 p. m. at P. S. Sector -20, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh. " ( 7 ) THE inquiries were ordered to be conducted against the police official of noida, who had initially investigated the matter. Superintendent of Police, meerut had submitted the report. The report was considered by Supreme Court. It was ordered as under:-"12. We are also of the opinion that having regard to the fact that diametrically opposite versions have been given by the petitioner and landlady smt. Tara Bhatt (Respondent No. 4) and the matter being already before the criminal court it will not be proper for us to make any observations at this stage, lest it may prejudice the accused in their trial in the criminal case. After the trial is over, where the parties will get opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence, and if the criminal court comes to a finding that there was any remissness on the part of the ASI concerned of Sector-20, Police station, NOIDA, who investigated the alleged offence, the authorities of the state Government may take appropriate departmental action. 13. It may be mentioned here that CBI has already filed charge-sheet against Respondent No. 4 for her prosecution under Sections 454 and 380 IPC and in the said criminal case charges have been framed by the learned Magistrate. The criminal case and the criminal revision preferred by the accused against the order framing of charge have already been transferred to Delhi by this Court. The petitioner has submitted that the trial of the criminal case is not proceeding and the learned Magistrate has been giving long dates. For an expeditious hearing of the case every party must cooperate. It will not be proper for us to give any direction to the learned Magistrate regarding fixation of dates in the said criminal case as it depends upon the docket of the Court. " ( 8 ) AS noted above, petitioner has chosen not to refer even to order dated 12. 7. 2005 passed by the Supreme Court, which has specifically dealt with the allegations of remissness against the NOIDA police. It appears that petitioner moved an application before learned trial court under section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. and prayed for taking on record copy of SLP (C) No. 16237/1998 decided on 13. 8. 7. 2005 passed by the Supreme Court, which has specifically dealt with the allegations of remissness against the NOIDA police. It appears that petitioner moved an application before learned trial court under section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. and prayed for taking on record copy of SLP (C) No. 16237/1998 decided on 13. 8. 1999 supported by his affidavit and did not deem it necessary to file copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 12. 7. 2005 in the Criminal Writ Petition. The application was dismissed vide order dated 19. 1. 2005 by learned trial court, holding:"i have already heard both sides on this application (22. 4. 04) and perused the entire judicial file minutely. The charge sheet has already been filed in this matter much earlier and several dates have been given in this matter from time to time since the filing of charge sheet. I am further of the considered view that CBI has thoroughly and minutely investigated this matter and I do not found any scope to refer this matter again for further investigation at this stage as prayed for by complainant/applicant in this application. Hence, the same is found to be devoid of merits at this stage and it is not allowed. Hence, it is decided in view of the above order. " ( 9 ) IN the facts and circumstances noted above, the second revision petition is an abuse of the process of Court. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order to warrant interference. Petition is dismissed. .