JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Judge has directed the police to further investigate in FIR No.258/2007 under the Provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 had taken a shop namely Ankur Medical & General Store on rent from the respondent No.2, for which respondent No.2 had taken an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner No.1 as security (Pagdi) which was agreed to be refunded upon vacating the shop. A rent agreement was also executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- witnessed by the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and attested by a Notary Public on 08.03.2001. But only after some time, the respondent No.2 started pressurising the petitioner No.1 to vacate the rented shop. In this regard, the respondent No.2, served a legal notice upon the petitioner No.1 in March, 2004; the petitioner No.1 replied and denied the contents thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 was served with a legal notice followed by a notice of a civil suit filed by the respondent No.2 for eviction from the rented shop. The petitioner No.1 came to know that the respondent No.2 had forged an agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- with regard to the rented shop, wherein the clause with regard to the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not mentioned. Therefore, he submitted a complaint against the respondent No.2 before the ACJM, Sawai Madhopur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, & 120B IPC. The said complaint was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 19.05.2007. After investigation, the police filed a negative final report. Against the final report, the petitioner No.1 filed a protest application before the ACJM, Sawai Madhopur. He examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 19.04.2008, the learned Magistrate dismissed the protest application and allowed the final report. Against the order dated 19.04.2008, a revision petition was preferred, which was dismissed on 17.06.2008. 3. The respondent No.2 also preferred a complaint against the petitioners that they had forged a rent agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-.The complaint was sent to Police Station Mantown u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No.258/2007 was registered for offences u/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC on 04.06.2007. 3. The respondent No.2 also preferred a complaint against the petitioners that they had forged a rent agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-.The complaint was sent to Police Station Mantown u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No.258/2007 was registered for offences u/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC on 04.06.2007. However, the Police submitted a final report that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature, which could be decided by a Civil Court. The respondent No.2 neither submitted any protest application, nor examined himself before the learned ACJM, Sawai Madhopur. However, on 03.11.2007, the learned Magistrate disallowed the final report and took cognizance against the petitioners u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the order dated 03.11.2007 before the Additional Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur, which was allowed vide order dated 17.06.2008. The respondent No.2 preferred a criminal revision petition against the order dated 17.06.2008 before this Court. Vide order dated 05.01.2009, this Court allowed the revision petition and while quashing the order dated 17.06.2008 directed the revisional court to re-hear the parties and pass a fresh order after taking into consideration all the grounds raised in the revision petition. Vide order dated 20.03.2009, the learned reivsional court while setting aside the order dated 03.11.2007 directed the learned ACJM, Sawai Madhopur to issue directions to the SHO, Police Station Mantown to further investigate the case in FIR No.258/2007. Hence, this petition before this court. 4. Mr. Anuraga Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that although the revisional court could have directed further investigation, it could not have directed the path to be taken by the Investigating Agency while investigating the case. In the present case, the learned revisional court has delineated the path to be taken by the Investigating Agency. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the case of Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra [ AIR 1968 SC 117 ]. Secondly, in case the fabrication of the document needs to be investigated, then the FIR lodged by the present petitioners, where the allegation is also with regard to another document, which is allegedly forged by the respondent No.2, then even that particular document should also be sent to the FSL. After all there is an allegation and counter-allegation from both the sides about two different documents being forged. After all there is an allegation and counter-allegation from both the sides about two different documents being forged. According to the learned counsel, it cannot be that while one document is being sent to the FSL for its opinion, the second document is not being examined by the FSL. In order to maintain parity, in order to discover the truth, the Investigating Agency should send both the documents to the FSL for its opinion. 5. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Jain, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, has contended that the revisional court has ample power to direct the learned Magistrate to direct further investigate into the case. According to the learned counsel, revisional court has not outlined the steps for investigation, although it has discussed the lacunae in the Investigation. It has merely revealed that further investigation is necessary under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the judgment of Abhinandan Jha & Ors. (supra) is inapplicable to the present case. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the reivsional court has merely discussed some of the lacunae left in the investigation by the Investigating Agency. Because of the lacunae left by the Investigating Agency, the revisional court concluded that the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency is unsustainable. Therefore, the learned revisional court directed that further investigation be made and the report be re-submitted to the court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the path or the steps for investigation have been laid down by the revisional court is unsustainable. 8. Considering the fact that both the parties have alleged that the other party has forged certain documents, it would be in the interest of justice that both the documents, allegedly forged are sent to the FSL for its opinion. The purpose of investigation is to discover the truth; it cannot be that the Investigating Agency discovers partial truth without reflecting upon the truth of another FIR which is connected with the FIR lodged by Mr. Jugal Kishore Sharma, petitioner No.1. 9. In this view of the matter, It is expected that the Investigating Agency will carry out an impartial investigation in both the FIRs and will submit the respective documents alleged to be forged before the FSL and submit its report accordingly. 10. Jugal Kishore Sharma, petitioner No.1. 9. In this view of the matter, It is expected that the Investigating Agency will carry out an impartial investigation in both the FIRs and will submit the respective documents alleged to be forged before the FSL and submit its report accordingly. 10. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******