ORDER 1. The criminal revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 19.1.2011 made in Cr. M.P. No. 5669 of 2009 in C.C. No. 14 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Trichirappalli in Crime No. 178 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent/de facto-complainant had filed Cr. M.P. No. 5669 of 2009 before the Court below under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., seeking further investigation. The Court below, after considering the submissions made by the petitioners and the respondents herein, had allowed the petition, directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter further and file a final report at the earliest stage and the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police, Colleroon Police Station was also directed to hand over the CD file to the said Deputy Superintendent of Police, aggrieved by which, the revision has been preferred by the petitioners/accused. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent/de-facto complainant is not legally entitled to file a petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision rendered in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 1051 : LNIND 2009 SC 1683 : (2009) 4 MLJ (Crl.) 1004 (SC). As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the aforesaid decision, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio that once charge sheet is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, either charge has to be framed or in case of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate shall record the reasons for the discharge. However, on the basis of a protest petition, he may take cognizance of the offence or on the application made by the prosecution, permit further investigation by police under Section 173(8) of the Code. However, the Magistrate cannot suo moto direct further investigation under Section 173(8) or direct re-investigation or further investigation on the petition filed by the de facto complainant. 5. However, the Magistrate cannot suo moto direct further investigation under Section 173(8) or direct re-investigation or further investigation on the petition filed by the de facto complainant. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto-complainant, relying on the decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (supra) case submitted that the second respondent, being the de facto complainant was entitled to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C on the ground that the first respondent had not properly conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent further submitted that in the instant case, some of the accused were left out and according to him, the charge sheet (final report) was also not properly filed. Hence, the second respondent/de facto-complainant had filed a petition, seeking further investigation and that was allowed by the Court below. 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent disputed the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and argued that the first respondent has conducted the investigation and filed the final report (charge sheet), according to law. 7. Mr. T.K. Gopalan, a learned senior member of the Bar, also voluntarily assisted the Court, expressing his view that the concept of victimology has been recognised under the criminal jurisprudence and according to him, the de facto-complainant, seeking further investigation could not have been ignored by the Court below and accordingly, the Court below has properly allowed the petition, whereby directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct further investigation and file a report and the Sub-Inspector of Police, the first respondent was also directed to hand over the CD file relating to the case to the said Deputy Superintendent of Police for further investigation. According to Mr. T.K. Gopalan, learned senior member of the Bar, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 8. According to Mr. T.K. Gopalan, learned senior member of the Bar, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 8. The important legal issue/question of law involved in this criminal revision is whether the Court below was empowered to direct further investigation on the petition filed by the de facto-complainant under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and direct the Superintendent of Police to conduct further investigation, in spite of the fact that the first respondent had already filed the charge sheet and the propriety of the impugned order, directing the first respondent to have over the CD file relating to the case to the Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent herein, being the de facto-complainant is an aggrieved party, entitled to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision, Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Others AIR 2010 SC 3175 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006 : LNIND 2010 SC 49 : (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 735 , wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “38. Subsequent to the aforesaid decision of this Court, another decision of this Court, namely, Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi was relied on by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, in which this Court observed after considering and following the decision in Vineet Narain v. Union of India case that once a charge-sheet is filed, the adequacy of otherwise of the charge-sheet and the investigation cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy which can be pursued if any aggrieved party feels that in some areas the investigation is inadequate is an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 10. In the decision referred to above, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that an aggrieved party cannot seek further investigation invoking Article 32 of the Constitution. It has been further held that if any aggrieved party feels that in some areas of the charge sheet, investigation is inadequate, the aggrieved party can file only an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, seeking further investigation. 11. It has been further held that if any aggrieved party feels that in some areas of the charge sheet, investigation is inadequate, the aggrieved party can file only an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, seeking further investigation. 11. In Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi (1999) SCC (Crl) 84 , the ruling of the Hon‘ble Apex Court reads as follows: “6. This position is so obvious that no discussion of the point is necessary. However, we may add that this position has never been doubted in similar cased dealt with by this Court. It was made clear by this Court in the very first case, namely, Vineet Narain v. Union of India that once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent Court after completion of the investigation, the process of monitoring by this Court for the purpose of making CBI and other investigative agencies concerned perform their function of investigating into the offences concerned comes to an end; and thereafter it is only the Court in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We make this observation only yo reiterate this clear position in law so that no doubts in any quarter may survive. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the High Court dealing primarily with this aspect cannot be sustained.” In this decision, the term ‘aggrieved party‘ coined by the Supreme Court shall be interpreted and read in conformity with the provision under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., for proper understanding of the legal proposition and the ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court. 12. The Hon‘ble Apex Court in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar AIR 2009 SC 2308 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cr) 1059 : LNIND 2009 SC 760 : (2009) 3 MLJ (Crl) 1089 , has held as follows: “17. From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of the police report under sub-section (2) on completion of the investigation, the police has a right to ‘further‘ investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not ‘fresh investigation‘ or ‘reinvestigation‘. The meaning of ‘further is additional, more or supplemental. The meaning of ‘further is additional, more or supplemental. ‘Further‘ investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.” In the said decision, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has clarified the terms ‘re-investigation‘ and ‘further investigation‘. As per the interpretation, further investigation is ordered, based on the additional material or evidence collected by the police/prosecution. However, re-investigation is ordered when the earlier investigation is improperly conducted and not sustainable in law, to meet the ends of justice. In the instant case, this Court has to consider the scope of further investigation ordered by the Court below under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, on the petition filed by the de facto-complainant and also the further directions given therein by the Court below. 13. In Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v. State of Gujarat (2010) 1 SCC (Cr) 79 : LNIND 2009 SC 1765 : (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 851 , the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held as follows: “33. Mr. Dave then referred to the decision of this Court in Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn. Wherein, since a charge-sheet had already been submitted by the investigating agency, a direction had to be given to the Magistrate to exercise his powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to make a proper and thorough investigation in an independent and objective manner and to submit an additional charge-sheet if any, in accordance with law. Mr. Dave pointed out that the said decision starts with the observation that the case in hand was an unfortunate case which tended to shake the credibility of police investigation and undermined the faith of the common man in Delhi Police which was supposed to protect the life and liberty of the citizen and to maintain law and order.” 14. In the said referred case, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that the power under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C is available to direct the authority to conduct proper and thorough investigation in an independent and objective manner and to submit an additional charge-sheet, if any in accordance with law. In the said referred case, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that the power under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C is available to direct the authority to conduct proper and thorough investigation in an independent and objective manner and to submit an additional charge-sheet, if any in accordance with law. It has been made clear that in appropriate cases, the Court may monitor and investigate the case relating to the offence when the investigation is not properly proceeded with or is being influenced by any interested persons and accordingly, the investigating authorities may proceed in the manner, as indicated by the High Court, as per the impugned order passed therein. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also drew the attention of this Court a decision in Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna and Another AIR 2009 SC 2932 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cr) 611 : LNIND 2009 SC 1499 : (2009) 4 MLJ (Crl) 397 , wherein the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that the revisional Court should not interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the Judicial Magistrate, unless a jurisdictional error or an error of law is noticed. It is a settled proportion of law that the revisional Court cannot interfere with discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court, unless there is jurisdictional error or an error of law is noticed. 16. In the instant revision, the question of law involved is whether the de facto-complainant is entitled to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C and the impugned order passed by the Court below directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct further investigation and directing the Sub-Inspector of Police, Colleroon Police Station, who had already investigated and filed the charge sheet, to hand over the CD file to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, on the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C is legally sustainable or not. 17. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 173(1) of the Code, which deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation and as per sub-section (1) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C every investigation under Chapter XII of the Code shall be completed without unnecessary delay. However, as contemplated under Section 173(8), there is no bar in seeking further investigation by the police, based on further evidence, oral or documentary collected by them. However, as contemplated under Section 173(8), there is no bar in seeking further investigation by the police, based on further evidence, oral or documentary collected by them. The sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C reads as follows: “(8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).” 18. The Section specifically contemplates that the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, on obtaining further evidence, oral or documentary, shall forward the same to the Magistrate by way of further report or reports of such evidence in the form prescribed and as per the said provision, it is made clear that it does not relate to the de-facto complainant or accused or any other person, except the police, who investigate the case. 19. Further, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (supra), in Paragraph No. 20 has held as follows: “In the instant case, the investigating authorities did not apply for further investigation and it was only upon the application filed by the de-facto complainant under Section 173(8), was a direction given by the learned Magistrate to reinvestigate the matter. As we have already indicated above, such a course of action was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Not only was the Magistrate wrong in directing a re-investigation on the application made by the de facto complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the said application filed by the de facto complainant.” 20. In that decision, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has categorically given its ruling that further investigation cannot be ordered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C either suo moto by the Magistrate or at the instance of the de facto-complainant. It could be done only based on the report filed by the police or prosecuting agency. In that decision, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has categorically given its ruling that further investigation cannot be ordered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C either suo moto by the Magistrate or at the instance of the de facto-complainant. It could be done only based on the report filed by the police or prosecuting agency. Here, admittedly, no further material was collected by the first respondent and no additional report by the first respondent police seeking further investigation has been filed. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. However, the Court below has not properly understood the law, as declared by the Hon‘ble Apex Court. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, as it has been passed against law, exceeding its jurisdiction. 21. While interpreting any legal proposition, the concept of ratio decidendi is a vital aspect. When a particular provision of law and the interpretation thereon are clear and directly applicable to the facts and circumstance of a case, such ratio laid down shall scrupulously be followed by any Court and a contrary view cannot be taken by mis-coating some other decision, which is not relevant to the facts and circumstance of the case. 22. It is well settled that as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, any decision rendered by the Hon‘ble Apex Court is binding on all Courts in the territory of India, as if the law passed by the Parliament. In this regard, it is relevant to refer Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which are reads as follows: “141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all Courts The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India.” 23. In view of the mandatory nature of Article 141, no Court in this Country can take a different view circumventing the direct interpretation given by the Apex Court, by relying on some other decision, which is not directly applicable to the facts of the case. 24. In Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (supra) case, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that further investigation cannot be ordered by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, however, the aggrieved party is entitled to invoke Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for seeking the remedy. 24. In Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (supra) case, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that further investigation cannot be ordered by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, however, the aggrieved party is entitled to invoke Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for seeking the remedy. Hence, the Court has to consider who is an aggrieved party, as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 25. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de facto -complainant submitted that the second respondent herein is an affected party and therefore, he can maintain a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, seeking further investigation, after the charge sheet being filed by the first respondent police. 26. In this context, the Court has to consider whether the second respondent/de facto-complainant could be construed as an aggrieved party, as per the interpretation of the Apex Court. It is crystal clear that as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 173 Cr.P.C, investigation under Chapter XII shall be completed without unnecessary delay. The scope of sub- section 8 of the said Section gives power to the Judicial Magistrate to order further investigation, after filing of the report by the police, if there is any further report or reports regarding such further evidence in the form prescribed, which needs further investigation. However, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (supra) case that the Judicial Magistrate is not empowered to suo moto order further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Similarly, the provision is not applicable to the de facto-complainant to seek further investigation. Under the said provision of law, the Magistrate is empowered to order further investigation only based on the subsequent report of the Investigating Office, in other words, the officer in-charge of the police station, collecting further evidence, either oral or document shall forward the same to the concerned Magistrate, by way of additional report and if the Magistrate is satisfied that further investigation is needed, based on such report, he can order for further investigation, to meet the ends of justice. 27. 27. In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been made clear that the second respondent/de facto-complainant is not entitled to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. As the ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (supra) case is directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, circumventing the decision and the scope of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the second respondent cannot raise a plea describing the de facto -complainant as an aggrieved party stating the concept of victimology The wisdom of jurisprudence would mandate the Court, while passing any order to consider the relevant provision of law, based on the direct interpretation of Apex Court as ratio decidendi and there could be no scope of circumventing the interpretation and the direct ratio laid down by the Apex Court, stating some general principles relating to victimology or criminal jurisprudence, since the law has been laid down clearly by the Hon‘ble Apex Court. 28. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is a jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C on the petition filed by the de facto -complainant, after filing of the charge sheet, whereby the Deputy Superintendent of Police has been directed to conduct further investigation and for which the first respondent was directed to hand over the CD file to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is seen that the impugned order has been passed against law based on a wrong understanding of the scope of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, the Criminal Revision has to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below has to be set aside, as not legally sustainable. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order, dated 19.1.2011 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 5669 of 2009 in C.C. No. 14 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Trichirappalli is set aside and the the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Trichirappalli is directed to proceed with the case, according to law on merits, uninfluenced by the findings if any by this Court in this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Revision allowed.