JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. 2. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against order dated 12th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Sriganganagar camp at Suratgarh in Cr. Revision Petition No.11/2003 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Petition, preferred by the petitioner against order dated 17th July 2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in FR Case No.138/2001, whereby Final Report filed by the Police in FIR No.211/2001 was returned, with specific directions for investigation in respect of alleged signature of the petitioner on the supardaginama. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Jagdish Chandra (non-petitioner No.2) filed a complaint against the petitioner, Vijay Kumar, Mukna Ram and another person who impostor himself as Jagdish Chandra before the court, for offence under section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B. Indian Penal Code, which was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. Thereupon, F.I.R .No. 211/2001 was registered at the Police Station, Suratgarh and after due investigation, the Police submitted a negative Final Report in the matter. 4. Indian Penal Code, which was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. Thereupon, F.I.R .No. 211/2001 was registered at the Police Station, Suratgarh and after due investigation, the Police submitted a negative Final Report in the matter. 4. In respect of negative Final Report submitted by Police, the complainant moved an application and on that application, an order dated 17th July 2002 was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, which is as under: " txnh'kpUnz cuke fot;dqekj ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ua0 211@2001 ,Q0vkj0 ua0 138@2001 17-7-2002 vfHk;ksxh dh vksj ls Jh ctjax Lokeh ,aM us odkyrukek is'k fd;k i=koyh dk v/;;u fd;k izdj.k esa eq[; fcUnq ;g gS fd vk;k okgu ds lqiqnZxhukek ij vfHk;ksxh txnh'kpUnz ds gLrk{kj uk gksdj fdlh vU; O;fDr ds gS tks dwVjpuk dk vfHk;qDr gksxkA iqfyl us txnh'k ds uewuk gLrk{kj fy;s gS ysfdu mudk feyku lqiqnZxhukek ij gq, dfFkr dwVjfpr txnh'kpUnz ds gLrk{kjksa ls ugha djok;k x;k blh izdkj iqfyl us dfFkr vfHk;qDr ds uewuk gLrk{kj ugha fy;s] tks fy;s tkus vko';d Fks mDr uewuk gLrk{kj fy;s tkdj mudk feyku dfFkr dwVjfpr gLrk{kjksa ls djok;k tkuk vko';d Fkk iqfyl us lgh rQ~rh'k uk dj dsoy D;kl ds vk/kkj ij fd txnh'kpUnz ds gkFk esa pksV Fkh] blfy;s gLrk{kj fHkUu gks ldrs gSA dk;Z fd;k gS tks fof/k fo:) gS D;ksafd iqfyl vkjksfir vijk/kh ds lEcU/k esa ,Q0,l0,y0 dh fjiksVZ izkIr dj fu.kZ; ysus esa l{ke gSA vr% vafre izfrosnu ykSVk;k tkdj ,l0,p0vks0 dks fy[kk tkos fd U;k;ky; esa mDr lizs{k.kksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, iqu% rQ~rh'k dj urhts ls U;k;ky; dks voxr djkosA i=koyh bartkj urhts esa fnukad 30-10-2002 dks is'k gksA ,l0Mh0 flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( ofj"B [k.M ) ,oa vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV lwjrx<+ ftyk Jh xaxkuxjA " 5. Against aforesaid order passed by learned ACJM, a Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner before the court of Sessions, being Revision Petition No.11/2003, which was not decided on merits but rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar Camp at Suratgarh on the ground of locus standi; hence, the petitioner has filed present Misc. Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not decided the Revision Petition on merits but simply on the ground that since no cognizance has yet been taken, therefore, Anil Kumar (petitioner) is still not an accused in the case and therefore, he has no locus standi to file the Revision Petition and dismissed the Revision Petition only on that ground. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order dated 17th July 2002 as well as order passed by the revisional court on 12th March 2008 are against law and the facts involved in this case. It is admitted fact that after thorough investigation, Police came to the conclusion that a false report has been lodged by the complainant. The learned Magistrate has given specific directions to the Police for conducting the investigation on specific lines, which is against the law and no such direction can be given to Police for investigation. 8. Therefore, the impugned order of the Magistrate was without jurisdiction and adversely affected the interests of the petitioner. Against this illegal order, Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner but the same was not decided on merits but has been dismissed simply on the ground of locus standi by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh as well as revisional order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar Camp at Suratgarh, are against law and liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on judgments reported in AIR 1980 SC 791  State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra and 2002 Cri LJ 1517  Gurupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another . 9. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 opposed the Misc. Petition and supported orders passed by learned courts below. 10. After thoughtfully considering the matter, first of all, I would like to refer the judgment delivered in Gurupal Singh's case (surpa), wherein it is held that the court can not compel an accused to give his specimen writing to Police for comparison with the disputed writing when the case at the stage of investigation. It would be pertinent to quote para 7 of the judgment in Gurupal Singh's case (supra), which reads as follows: "7. It would be pertinent to quote para 7 of the judgment in Gurupal Singh's case (supra), which reads as follows: "7. Similar question, as in the present case, arose for consideration in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Babu Misra, AIR 1980 SC 791 . In the said case, prayer was made by the investigating officer to direct the accused to give his specimen writings for the purpose of comparison with certain disputed writings. The learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer observing that he had no such power since the case is under investigation. The view taken by the Magistrate was upheld by this Court. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred appeal to the Supreme Court. Interpreting Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that if a case is still under investigation there is no proceeding before the court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. The language used in the section does not permit a court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings anticipating the necessity for comparison in a proceeding which may later be instituted in the court. The Court made reference to Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, which empowers the Magistrate to direct a person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken for the purpose of investigation. Similar provision being not there for obtaining writings or signatures of an accused during investigation either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other statute, the Court suggested for suitable legislation on the analogy of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. The said suggestion, it is submitted, has been kept in cold storage and no anxiety has been shown to bring out any legislation." 11. It is indeed trite to state that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extremely narrow. Considering the facts & circumstances vis-a-vis orders impugned, it is not a fit case for this Court to interfere by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. It is indeed trite to state that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extremely narrow. Considering the facts & circumstances vis-a-vis orders impugned, it is not a fit case for this Court to interfere by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Moreover, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner has already availed remedy of one revision, as envisaged under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Now, in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner wants to avail second revision in the matter, which is otherwise barred by sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Though this Court has inherent powers under Sec .482 Cr.P.C. to be exercised in appropriate cases, where it appears that the order under challenge has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the court; however, in the circumstances, I find no such merit in this Misc. Petition filed by the petitioner and therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. At this stage, it is made clear that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer would not compel the petitioner to give his specimen writings/signature on the basis of order passed by the Magistrate on 17th July, 2002.The Misc. Stay Petition also stands dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******