JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. As both these, Revision Application as well as the Special Criminal Application arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court – learned Sessions Court, Surat, both these applications are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 1.1. Rule. So far as Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 is concerned, Shri R.J. Goswami, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 herein and Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 State as well as the Investigating Officer. Similarly, so far as RULE in Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 is concerned, Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State of Gujarat. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Revision Application as well as Special Criminal Application are taken up for final hearing and heard finally. 2. Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 has been preferred by the applicant herein – original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Court – learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 by which the learned Revisional Court has allowed the said Revision Application preferred by the respondent No.2 herein – original accused and has quashed and set aside the order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat by which the learned Magistrate rejected the application Exh.28 submitted by respondent No.2 – original accused for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") and consequently allowed the said application Exh.28 and ordered further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and directed the Investigating Officer to further investigate the case on the points/issues mentioned in application Exh.28 and submit the report within two months. 2.1. 2.1. Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioners herein – original complainant (and original accused of FIR being ICR No.257 of 2009) to quash and set aside the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 and consequently to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat regarding registration of FIR with an order for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 2.2. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1746 of 2012 has been preferred by the applicants of the said application for permitting them to be joined as party respondents in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012. 3. The facts leading to present proceedings and which are very necessary for determination of the present proceedings in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 – original complainant – Nitinbhai Mangubhai Patel lodged an FIR with Puna Police Station, Surat against the respondent No.2 herein – Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 511, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."), which was numbered as C.R. No.I-257 of 2009. That the said FIR was lodged with the Puna Police Station, Surat on 22.12.2009. That after the investigation was concluded, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against all the accused persons in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat on 22.04.2010 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 511 and 120B and 114 of the I.P.C. That thereafter the case has been registered as Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010. That the respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.1 – Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya submitted application Exh.28 for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and simultaneously also submitted the application Exh.29 requesting to discharge him for the offences for which he has been charge-sheeted. The said applications were submitted on 10.06.2011, i.e. after a period of 14 months from submitting the charge-sheeting against them. It appears that thereafter on 14.06.2011, other accused persons – original accused Nos.2 to 6 submitted other applications at Exh.31 for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. as well as application Exh.32 to discharge them for the offences for which they are charges-heeted. It appears that thereafter on 14.06.2011, other accused persons – original accused Nos.2 to 6 submitted other applications at Exh.31 for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. as well as application Exh.32 to discharge them for the offences for which they are charges-heeted. That the learned Magistrate/trial Court dismissed both the applications Exh.28 and 31 (which were submitted for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. by accused No.1 as well as accused No.2 to 6 respectively) by common order dated 24.08.2011. By common order dated 21.10.2011, the learned trial Court/Magistrate also rejected the application Exhs.29 and 32 rejecting the discharge applications submitted by the original accused No.1 and original accused Nos.2 to 6 respectively. It appears that all the accused persons jointly preferred Criminal Revision Application No.428 of 2011 challenging the common order passed by the learned trial Court/Magistrate below applications Exhs.29 and 32 (discharge applications). That the learned Revisional Court – learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat by order dated 06.01.2012 dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court/Magistrate dated 21.10.2011 rejecting the discharge applications. 3.2. That in the meantime and when the applications submitted by the original accused for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. at Exhs.28 and 31 were pending, the original accused No.1 for himself and power of attorney holder of other accused filed a private complaint in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 against the original complainant Nitin Mangubhai Patel and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34, 114 and 120B of the I.P.C. with allegations which are as such can be said to be his defences in the Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010 in which they have been charge-sheeted and also making the very allegations which were made in his discharge applications Exh.28 and 29. That the said complaint came to be filed on 26.07.2011 which was filed for an order under Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. and in the alternative to pass an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. That by order dated 09.09.2011, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application – Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011. 3.3. That the said complaint came to be filed on 26.07.2011 which was filed for an order under Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. and in the alternative to pass an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. That by order dated 09.09.2011, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application – Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011. 3.3. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court/learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 24.08.2011 below Exh.28, respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.1 Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya preferred Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011. At this stage, it is to be noted that original accused Nos.2 to 6 did not challenge the order passed by C.J.M. rejecting their application Exh.31. 3.4. Simultaneously, the original complainant–Applicant of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 also preferred Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 09.09.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011. 3.5. That both the aforesaid Revision Applications came to be heard by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat jointly and by impugned common judgment and order dated 10.01.2012, the learned Revisional Court has allowed the Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 preferred by the respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.1 by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 24.08.2011 below application Exh.28 and consequently allowing the said application and ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. directing the I.O. to further investigate the case considering the observations made in the impugned order and to submit the report within 60 days before the competent Court having jurisdiction. In view of the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. on the issues/allegations made in the application Exh.28 which are also alleged in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011, learned Revisional Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 by observing that no further separate order is required to be passed and consequently by impugned order the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 preferred by the respondent No.2 herein and others – original accused – original complainants of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011. 3.6. 3.6. That thereafter original accused No.1 – Vinubhai Malaviya preferred Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 before this Court challenging the earlier order passed by the learned Revisional Court – learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.428 of 2011 by which the learned Revisional Court dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order passed by the learned C.J.M. dated 21.10.2011 passed below Exhs.29 and 32 rejecting the discharge applications submitted by the original accused. That the said Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2011 came to be withdrawn by the original accused on 13.06.2012 with a liberty to file a fresh application for discharge after investigation is concluded (the purpose and circumstances under which the original accused withdrew the said Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 on 13.06.2012 are stated herein above, which shall be discussed hereinafter). 3.7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the original accused, the applicant herein – original complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 before this Court on 24.01.2012 and the said Revision Application came up for hearing on 22.02.2012 and at that time learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 State and Shri P.M. Thakkar, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.1 and the learned Single Judge passed an order directing to issue notice in the said Revision Application making it returnable on 29.02.2012. That thereafter again the Revision Application was heard by the learned Single Judge on 13.04.2012 and the learned Single Judge directed to call for the Record & Proceedings of the Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010 and the matter was adjourned to 04.05.2012. That thereafter the matter was heard and adjourned from time to time. That thereafter again the Revision Application was heard by the learned Single Judge on 13.04.2012 and the learned Single Judge directed to call for the Record & Proceedings of the Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010 and the matter was adjourned to 04.05.2012. That thereafter the matter was heard and adjourned from time to time. It appears that in the meantime and after the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned Revisional Court on 10.01.2012, as the prosecution/State intended to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State in the said Criminal Revision Application submitted the application before learned Revisional Court to stay the further implementation and operation of the judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 by submitting that the State proposes to approach the High Court against the said judgment and order, however, unfortunately, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 21.01.2012 rejected the said application. 3.8. It appears that thereafter pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court dated 10.01.2012 in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., the Commissioner of Police, Surat passed an order dated 16.01.2012 handing over further investigation to Police Inspector, Khatodara Police Station, Surat and he started further investigation on 25.01.2012. It is required to be noted at this stage that as such the learned Special PP who appeared in the aforesaid Criminal Revision Application already proposed to prefer Revision Application before this Court against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court ordering further investigation, by his opinion dated 18/19.01.2012 sent to the Secretary, Legal Department. Thereafter, the further investigation was handed over to P.I. Shri K.M. Gohil, Puna Police Station, Surat and it seems that he initiated further investigation on 25.01.2012. That P.I. Shri Gohil who was the I.O. at the relevant time and who was entrusted with the further investigation pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court, came to be transferred and on his place, present I.O. Shri R.A. Munshi was appointed and it appears that from that day the mischief started in the matter. It appears that further investigation was handed over to the present I.O. Shri Munshi on 06.03.2012 (even as per his own report) and within a period of three days he submitted the interim further investigation report before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City on 09.03.2012 (though there is no such provision under the Cr.P.C. to submit interim further investigation report and that too before the Court before whom no proceedings were pending) and from the said interim further investigation report, virtually he submitted the report giving acquittal to the accused persons who were already charge-sheeted in Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010 and also requested to grant further 30 days' time. It is required to be noted and which is not disputed that the said interim further investigation report was submitted by the present I.O. Shri Munshi straightway before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City and not even through the concerned Special P.P. It appears that deliberately the said alleged interim further investigation report was not submitted through the Special PP as in fact according to the report sent by the learned Special PP, he had already proposed to challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court ordering further investigation and therefore, if he would have submitted the interim further investigation report dated 09.03.2012 through learned Special PP, he might not have permitted him to produce the same on record and therefore, deliberately the present I.O. Shri Munshi straightway submitted the interim further investigation report dated 09.03.2012 before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such no proceedings were pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City in which such a report could have been produced. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even as per the earlier judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 ordering for further investigation, the I.O. was required to submit the further investigation report before the concerned Court which would be the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Therefore, in any case such an interim further investigation report was not required to be produced by the I.O. before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City, still he placed it before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City and that too directly and even which was not even inwarded. The matter does not end here. Again the I.O. Shri Munshi submitted an another interim further investigation report dated 10.04.2012 straightway before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City again virtually acquitting the accused persons in Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010 and even the said report dated 10.04.2012 was straightway submitted before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City directly and not through the concerned PP/Special PP and that too when no proceedings before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City were pending. It is required to be noted that in the report dated 10.04.2012, the I.O. did mention about the pendency of Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 before this Court and still he proceeded further with further investigation with a view to see that the present Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 becomes infructuous. It appears that by the said report, the I.O. also prayed for further 30 days time to complete the further investigation (the contents and findings of the I.O .by which the present I.O. has virtually acquitted the accused persons in Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010 will be discussed herein after). 3.9. It appears that by the said report, the I.O. also prayed for further 30 days time to complete the further investigation (the contents and findings of the I.O .by which the present I.O. has virtually acquitted the accused persons in Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010 will be discussed herein after). 3.9. That thereafter it appears that the respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.1 and others got the copies of the reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 submitted by the present I.O. Shri Munshi by which virtually the I.O. has acquitted them in Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010 and for the offences for which they are charge-sheeted and therefore, with a malafide intention the original accused withdrew Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 on 13.06.2012 with a liberty to file a fresh application for discharge after investigation is concluded and it seems that without even disclosing before the learned Single Judge with respect to the two reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 as well as the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 and the learned Single Judge permitted them to withdraw the said Special Criminal Application which was preferred against the order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.428 of 2011 which was submitted against the order passed by the learned C.J.M./trial Court rejecting the discharge application Exhs.29 and 32. 3.10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012, which has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011, is required to be considered. 4. Shri S.V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri A.B. Munshi, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicant – original complainant and Shri R.J. Goswami, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 – original accused No.1 in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 and Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State as well as the Investigating Officer. 4.1. 4.1. At the outset it is required to be noted that Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special PP appearing on behalf of the State and the prosecution has stated at the Bar that the State and the prosecution disown the interim further investigation report dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 submitted by the present I.O. Shri Munshi and has submitted that such reports could not have been filed/submitted by the present I.O. and even such reports were not permissible at all that too before the learned Sessions Court before whom no proceedings were pending and he has as such submitted that in view of the above both these reports are to be treated as if they are not filed at all and/or they are not in existence at all. He has also stated at the Bar and submitted that as such the aforesaid reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 do not reflect the case on behalf of the State and/or the prosecution and as such, such reports ought not have and could not have been filed by the present IO. He has also stated at the Bar that he does not know how the reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 came in the custody of the original accused persons. 4.2. Shri S.V. Raju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 by which the learned Revisional Court ordered further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and that too on the application submitted by the accused making following legal submissions. (1) That the Revision Application before the learned Revisional Court against the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the applications Exh.28 and 31 for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable as the order rejecting the said application was an interlocutory order. (2) That the learned Magistrate has already taken the cognizance and accepted the charge-sheet and given the criminal case number by issuing process against the accused persons, thereafter, the learned Magistrate has no authority to pass an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. either at the instance of the complainant or accused. (2) That the learned Magistrate has already taken the cognizance and accepted the charge-sheet and given the criminal case number by issuing process against the accused persons, thereafter, the learned Magistrate has no authority to pass an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. either at the instance of the complainant or accused. (3) That in absence of any specific provision under the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and that too at the instance and/or on the application submitted by the accused persons. (4) Assuming that the learned Magistrate has such jurisdiction, in that case also, no order could have been passed for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. that too on an application by the accused persons, without giving an opportunity to be heard to the complainant as it will prejudice the complainant. (5) That even otherwise on the grounds which are as such the defences of the accused, no order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. can be passed at the instance of the accused. (6) Even on merits also, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Revisional Court has erred in ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. In support of his above submission that the Revision Application against the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Sessions Court was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. and in as much as the order impugned before the learned Sessions Judge was an interlocutory order, Shri Raju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Patel and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in (2000)6 SCC 195 . It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the order as an interlocutory or not, the test to be applied is that of culmination of the proceedings finally. It is submitted that if the objection raised by party is such that it would result in culmination of the proceedings then the order would not be an interlocutory order. It is submitted that if the objection raised by party is such that it would result in culmination of the proceedings then the order would not be an interlocutory order. Therefore, it is submitted that applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the present case, any order under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. would never culminate the proceedings finally, therefore, it is an interlocutory order and therefore, against the order passed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., the Revision Application would not lie. 4.3. In support of the contention on behalf of the applicant – original complainant that neither the learned Magistrate nor the learned Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., after learned Magistrate had taken the cognizance, Shri Raju, learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1997)1 SCC 361 ; as well as decision in the case of Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2009)9 SCC 129 as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Miteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2006(3) GLR 1935 . It is submitted by Shri Raju, learned Counsel that in the present case, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons on 22.04.2010 which was accepted by the learned Magistrate and even the summonses were issued against the accused persons on 23.04.2010 much before the date of application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Revisional Court has materially erred in ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and that too at the instance of the accused. 4.4. It is further submitted that not only that even on the ate of application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., not only had the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate but on the very day they also moved an application for discharge. After acceptance of the charge-sheet, the case was also numbered as Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010. Therefore, it is submitted that all the aforesaid facts show that the learned Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the matter. After acceptance of the charge-sheet, the case was also numbered as Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010. Therefore, it is submitted that all the aforesaid facts show that the learned Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the matter. Therefore, it is submitted that having once taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Court could not have made the order under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that it is only the police or the I.O. who can take and/or pray for further investigation as provided under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. 4.5. It is further submitted by Shri Raju, learned Counsel that as such in absence of any specific provision under the Cr.P.C., neither the Magistrate nor the learned Sessions Court has any jurisdiction to pass an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that unlike the High Court, the Magistrate does not possess any inherent powers. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has to act within the four corners of the Cr.P.C. therefore, it is submitted that even no power is conferred on the learned Magistrate under any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has no authority or jurisdiction to exercise such powers. It is submitted that in the present case, the Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on a Magistrate to pass an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., such a right is exclusively with the investigating agency and therefore, in absence of specific provision, the learned Magistrate has no power to pass order for further investigation. In support of his above submissions, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant – original complainant has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in (2004) 13 SCC 324 as well as in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors., reported in (2004)7 SCC 338 . 4.6. It is further submitted by Shri Raju, learned Counsel that even otherwise the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court which has been passed without giving an opportunity to the original complainant deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.6. It is further submitted by Shri Raju, learned Counsel that even otherwise the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court which has been passed without giving an opportunity to the original complainant deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 401(2) read with Section 399 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Court ought to have heard the original complainant before deciding the Revision Application in favour of the accused. It is submitted that as such the original complainant was heard before the learned Magistrate while deciding the applications Exh.28 and 31. It is submitted that therefore, impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court without hearing the complainant i.e. the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 is not only in violation of the provisions of Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. but is also contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and Anr., reported in (2009)2 SCC 363 . It is submitted that if the opportunity would have been given to the applicant – original complainant, he would have pointed out that the Revision Application was not maintainable since the order was an interlocutory order etc. and that even on merits also, the learned Sessions Judge should not have passed the impugned order. 4.7. It is further submitted that even otherwise on merits also, the learned Revisional Court has materially erred in ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. that too at the instance of the accused who was already charge-sheeted and against whom the summons was issued by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that as such the application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. has been made for oblique purposes and is not germane or relevant for the matter in controversy before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that for the defence of the accused, the order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be passed. It is submitted that in the present case apart from the fact that the ground on which the further investigation was sought were not relevant with respect to the Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010, at the most the same can be said to be his defence. It is submitted that in the present case apart from the fact that the ground on which the further investigation was sought were not relevant with respect to the Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010, at the most the same can be said to be his defence. It is submitted that even on merits also, the learned Revisional Court has erred in ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that therefore the Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the purpose for which the further investigation was sought by the accused and has without appreciating the oblique purposes for further investigation, the learned Revisional Court has passed the impugned order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.8. It is further submitted by Shri Raju, learned Counsel that in the present case even the subsequent I.O. Shri Munshi has acted malafidely and in collusion with the accused persons. It is submitted that the present I.O. took over the charge of the investigation on 06.03.2012 and within a period of three days only submitted the interim further investigation report dated 09.03.2012 and that too before the learned Sessions Court before whom no proceedings were pending and that too directly and not even through the concerned Special Public Prosecutor and virtually gave the findings in favour of the accused persons and virtually acquitted the accused persons. It is further submitted that despite the fact that the present I.O. was aware of the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 and in fact he appeared before this Court also, he proceeded further with the further investigation and submitted a further interim further investigation report dated 10.04.2012 giving findings in favour of the accused persons and acquitting the accused persons in Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010. It is submitted that as such the discharge application submitted by the accused persons to discharge them for the offences for which they are charge-sheeted came to be rejected not only by the learned Magistrate but even by the Revisional Court and Special Criminal Application against the said orders was pending before this Court and by submitting the aforesaid two reports, the present I.O. has virtually nullified the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Court rejecting the discharge applications. It is submitted that even the accused persons even got the copies of those reports and considering the same, purposefully and deliberately withdrew the Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 with a liberty to file fresh discharge application before the learned Magistrate. Thus, the accused persons wanted to get the undue advantage and benefit of the aforesaid two reports. It is submitted that as such the present I.O. deliberately and purposefully submitted the aforesaid two reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 before the learned Sessions Court directly and though before the learned Sessions Court as such no proceedings were pending. It is submitted that even the present I.O. submitted the aforesaid two reports directly before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat City and not even through the learned Special Public Prosecutor and even neither any application for extension nor even such reports were in warded in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat before whom the said reports were submitted. It is submitted that the present I.O. deliberately did not submit the aforesaid reports through the learned Special Public Prosecutor as in fact the learned Special PP who appeared in the Criminal Revision Application before the Revisional Court, had already submitted the report/proposal to challenge the order before this Court and therefore, even keeping him in dark, the reports have been submitted. It is submitted that even such a practise before the learned Sessions Court to submit the reports directly in the Court and without even giving the inward number and/or that where no proceedings were pending before him is also questionable. 4.9. Taking note of the statement made by Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special PP appearing on behalf of the State and prosecution that the State and the prosecution disowns the aforesaid two reports and they are to be treated as if they are not in existence, Shri Raju, learned Counsel has submitted that as such the present I.O. has already done the damage to the case of the prosecution and the complainant. It is submitted that still when the said reports are submitted pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court – learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 and when it is requested to quash and set aside the said judgment and order and once it is accepted, in that case, whatever action is taken pursuant to the said order which is to be quashed and set aside, all subsequent actions are also to be quashed and set aside. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 and quash and set aside the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 10.01.2012 in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 by which the learned Revisional Court passed an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. 5. Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State and the prosecution. Her has fully supported the submissions made by Shri Raju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant – original complainant. He has stated at the Bar that he adopts all the submissions made by Shri Raju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant. It is submitted that even according to the State and prosecution also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and that too at the instance of the accused and that too after the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case, is not permissible and cannot be sustained. It is submitted that even on merits also, the learned Revisional Court has materially erred in ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. as the issues for which the learned Sessions Court has passed an order for further investigation are not at all relevant for the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused persons and in any case they can be said to be the defence of the accused. It is submitted that for the defences of the accused there cannot be any order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that even under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has no jurisdiction and/or authority to pass an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., the powers which are vested only with the investigating agency. 5.1. Now, so far as the two interim further investigation reports submitted by the present I.O. Shri Munshi, as stated herein above, Shri Nanavati, learned Special PP has stated at the Bar that the State and the prosecution disowns the aforesaid two reports submitted by the present I.O. It is submitted that as such the present I.O. was not justified in submitting the aforesaid two interim further investigation reports and that too before the learned Sessions Court before whom no proceedings were pending and that too directly and even not through the Public Prosecutor/Special Public Prosecutor. He has also stated at the Bar that even the State and the prosecution is of the opinion that said reports are submitted in haste may be with malafide intention and it is against the interest of the prosecution and the complainant. Therefore, it is submitted that the aforesaid two reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 to be ignored for all purposes as if they are not in existence at all. Shri Nanavati, learned Special PP appearing on behalf of the State and the prosecution has fairly conceded that by the aforesaid two reports though were not permissible at all, the present I.O. has virtually tried to acquit the accused persons for the offences for which they are charge-sheeted in Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010. At the end Shri Nanavati, learned Special PP has requested to pardon the present I.O. by submitting that in haste the present I.O. might have submitted the reports. However, he has ultimately left it to the Court with respect to the conduct on the part of the present IO. 6. Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 has been opposed by Shri R.J. Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 herein – original revisionist – original accused No.1 as well as Shri Kapadia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original accused Nos.2 to 6. 6. Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 has been opposed by Shri R.J. Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 herein – original revisionist – original accused No.1 as well as Shri Kapadia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original accused Nos.2 to 6. Shri Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused No.1 has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Court has not committed any error and/or illegality in allowing the revision application preferred by the original accused No.1 and granting the relief for further investigation. He has vehemently submitted that as such the application for further investigation was based on the papers collected during investigation in the form of the charge-sheet and therefore, it cannot be said that the prayer for further investigation by the accused persons was made in support of their defence. It is further submitted by Shri Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original accused No.1 that as such the present revision application by the complainant is not maintainable against the grant of order of further investigation as it does not finally determine his rights, whereas refusal to order further investigation at the instance of the accused would close the doors of further investigation and would finally determine the rights of the accused. 6.1. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has no power to order for further investigation is concerned, it is submitted by the learned advocates appearing for the respondents that as such the learned Magistrate may not have power to order further investigation on his own, but the learned Magistrate has the power to order further investigation on the application of any party inclusive of the accused. Therefore, it is submitted that as such no illegality has been committed by the learned revisional court in ordering further investigation on the application of the accused. It is further submitted that as such no rights of the complainant are decided by the order of further investigation. It is submitted that Cr.P.C. does not provide hearing of the complainant before ordering further investigation. It is further submitted that as such no rights of the complainant are decided by the order of further investigation. It is submitted that Cr.P.C. does not provide hearing of the complainant before ordering further investigation. It is further submitted that as such further investigation is not to advance any defence of the accused but the facts on record and the facts which may be investigated would falsify the basis of the FIR and the charge-sheet. It is further submitted by the learned advocates appearing for the original accused that as it was found by the accused that the earlier investigation conducted by the I.O. was not fair and/or impartial and he did not investigate in detail and to find out the truth and therefore, it necessitated the accused to submit the applications for further investigation which is rightly granted by the revisional court. 6.2. Shri Goswami, learned advocate appearing for the original accused No.1, who is also the power of attorney holder of original accused Nos.2 to 6 has heavily relied upon the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Valiben W/o. Vitthalbhai Narsinhbhai and Ors., reported in 2006(2) GLH 354 and has submitted that as observed by the learned single Judge in the said decision, valuable right is available to the accused to seek further investigation. It is submitted that application for further investigation by the accused is permissible even after filing the report and also after taking cognizance. It is submitted that a valuable right is also available to the accused to seek aid of provisions of section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram Karri reported in (2006)7 SCC 172 , it is submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, investigation is to be carried out by the investigating agency not only from the stand of the prosecution, but also the defence. Relying upon the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Chandan Panalal Jaiswal v. State of Gujarat reported in 2005(3) GCD 2406 (Guj), it is submitted that in the said case the learned single Judge entertained the petition at the instance of the accused and allowed the same with direction for further investigation. Relying upon the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Chandan Panalal Jaiswal v. State of Gujarat reported in 2005(3) GCD 2406 (Guj), it is submitted that in the said case the learned single Judge entertained the petition at the instance of the accused and allowed the same with direction for further investigation. Shri Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused No.1 has submitted that neither investigation can shut its eyes and refuse to examine the case set up by the accused which lead to exonerate the complicity of accused in commission of crime nor the court would be justified in not taking into consideration all the possible defence or circumstances, emerging from the material on record before it. It is submitted that ignore the same and confine itself to inquire in such direction for proving that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged against him. It is submitted that the obligation or the duty of the investigation is not to make out a case against the persons accused of offence but the obligation is to find out the truth. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Deepak Jaswantlal Sheth reported in 1998(3) GLR 2240 . Relying upon the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Sarlaben Virsing Bamaniya and Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 1989(1) GLH 148 , it is submitted by Shri Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused No.1 that even the sessions court can order further investigation. Now, with respect to the powers of the High Court to interfere with the direction of the Magistrate for further investigation, Shri R.J. Goswami, learned advocate appearing for the original accused No.1 has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Narain Agrawal v. Shashi Agrawal and Ors., reported in (2009)6 SCC 385 . Shri R.J. Goswami, learned advocate appearing for the original accused No.1 has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2011(1) GLR 1 (SC) and submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, if the investigation is found to have been done in a manner to favour one party, further investigation can be ordered. Relying upon the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Mavjibhai Karsanbhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat reported in 2003(4) GLR 3371 , it is further submitted that there is no prohibition of ordering further investigation after taking the cognizance. Shri Goswami, learned advocate appearing for the original accused No.1 has then relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2004)5 SCC 347 in support of his submission that when fresh facts [the lapses in earlier investigation in the present case] come to light, the police should inform the court and seek permission to make further investigation. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused have vehemently submitted that against the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court ordering further investigation which is interlocutory order, the revision application would not be maintainable. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the revision application would be maintainable, the scope is limited to the legality of the order and it is not open for the High Court to go into the merits of the case. In support of his above submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1977)4 SCC 351; Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2001)7 SCC 401 and in the case of State represented by Inspector of Police and Ors. v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate reported in (2004)5 SCC 729 . 6.3. v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate reported in (2004)5 SCC 729 . 6.3. Shri Kapadia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners of Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 has requested to allow the Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 and to quash and set aside the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned CJM, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 and consequently to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 regarding registration of FIR with an additional order for further investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as such on allowing the revision application and ordering further investigation, as such the learned revisional court has not considered the Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 on merits. Making above submissions it is requested to allow the Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012. 7. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and perused and considered in detail the order passed by the learned Magistrate passed below Exhs.28 preferred by the original accused No.1 which was submitted for further investigation as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 and Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat and also perused the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 filed by the accused against the complainant as well as the two interim further investigation reports submitted by the subsequent Investigating Officer Shri Munshi. 7.1. At the outset it is required to be noted that while considering the present proceedings conduct of the accused persons and even the conduct of the subsequent Investigating Officer, following chronology of events/facts are required to be considered. Date Facts/Events 22.12.2009 ICR No.257 of 2009 came to be filed with Puna Police Station, Surat by Nitin Mangubhai Patel against Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. alleging offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 511, 120B and 114 of the I.P.C. 22.04.2010 After investigation, the charge-sheet is filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat for offences under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 511, 120B and 114 of the I.P.C. and thereafter registered as Criminal Case No.9781 of 2010. 10.06.2011 Applications Exh.28 (for further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.) and Exh.29 (for discharge) respectively given by accused No.1 Vinubhai Malaviya. 10.06.2011 Applications Exh.28 (for further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.) and Exh.29 (for discharge) respectively given by accused No.1 Vinubhai Malaviya. 14.06.2011 Applications Exh.31 (for further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.) and Exh.32 (for discharge) respectively given by accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 24.08.2011 The trial Court rejected both the application Exhs.28 and 31. 21.10.2011 Common order passed below application Exhs.29 and 32 rejecting discharge applications. 11.11.2011 Revision Application No.428 of 2011 preferred by all the accused jointly challenging the common order passed below application Exhs.29 and 32. It is to be noted that the said revision application was preferred by Vinubhai Malaviya – original accused No.1 for himself as well as, as power of attorney holder of original accused Nos.2 to 6. 06.01.2012 Order came to be passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat below Criminal Revision Application No.428 of 2011 confirming the order passed by the learned C.J.M. below application Exhs.29 and 32 rejecting the discharge applications. Against that order, Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 was preferred in the High Court which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application for discharge after investigation is over. 26.07.2011 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 filed by Vinubhai Malaviya and other accused through Vinubhai as their power of attorney, against the original complainant to register the FIR/for an order under section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. and in the alternative under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 09.09.2011 This application was rejected by the C.J.M. by order dated 09.09.2011 17.09.2011 Against the order dated 09.09.2011, Vinubhai Malaviya as P.O.A. of Shantaben Maganbhai & Ors. preferred Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 in the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Surat challenging the rejection of order passed below application under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Against the order of refusal of further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., Vinubhai Malaviya preferred Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 before the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Surat. 10.01.2012 The Sessions Judge by order dated 10.01.2012 decided both the applications i.e. Revision Application Nos.346 of 2011 and 376 of 2011 by a common order and allowed the Revision Application No.376 of 2011 (for further investigation) and rejected the Revision Application No.346 of 2011 (154 & 156(3) Cr.P.C.) 10.03.2012 That after an order passed by the learned Sessions Court ordering further investigation and despite the fact that the learned Special PP sent the proposal for preferring revision application against the order passed by the learned Sessions Court permitting further investigation and allowed Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011, the investigation was handed over to I.O. Shri Munshi on 06.03.2012 and within a period of 3 days alleged to have conducted further investigation and submitted the interim further investigation report in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (though no proceedings were pending before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat) 10.04.2012 That I.O. Shri Munshi submitted the interim further investigation report (second) again in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat on 10.04.2012. 13.06.2012 Having received the copies of aforesaid interim further investigation reports and having come to know that the said reports are in their favour, the original accused withdrew Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 before this Court, which was filed against the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.428 of 2011 confirming the order passed by the learned C.J.M. rejecting their discharge applications, with a liberty to move an appropriate application for discharge before the Magistrate, without even disclosing with respect to pendency of Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 and even without disclosing the subsequent interim further investigation reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012. 7.2. From the aforesaid chronological events and the facts it appears that the application submitted by the accused for further investigation and even the alleged further investigation carried out by the subsequent Investigating Officer Shri Munshi, who submitted two interim further investigation reports dated 09.03.2012 & 10.04.2012 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat are nothing but abuse of process of court and the law and the same were submitted with malafide intention. 7.3. 7.3. From the aforesaid it appears that the applications Exhs.28 and 31 submitted by the original accused for further investigation, were submitted after the report/charge-sheet was submitted by the I.O. against the accused persons and the learned C.J.M. took the cognizance and at the relevant time the accused submitted the applications to discharge them. It is also required to be noted that when the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat passed the impugned order for further investigation in Revision Application No.376 of 2011, not only the discharge applications submitted by the accused – Exhs.29 and 32 were rejected by the learned C.J.M., even the same were confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Court vide order dated 06.01.2012 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.428 of 2011 against which the accused persons were before this Court by way of Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even the grounds on which the accused submitted the applications for further investigation are nothing but their defences, which are required to be considered at the time of trial. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even the grounds on which the accused sought further investigation by submitting the applications Exhs.28 & 31, on the very allegations the accused submitted Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 against the complainant. Therefore, on one hand, the accused submitted the applications for further investigation and on the very grounds submitted Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 against the original complainant and sought the order under section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. and in the alternative under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Considering section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., there cannot be any further investigation at the instance of the accused on the on the grounds which in fact are their defences which are required to be considered at the time of trial and that too after the I.O. has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused having found prima facie case which requires further trial and more particularly on the very grounds the accused submitted the discharge applications which not only came to be rejected by the learned C.J.M. but even the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions Court. Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. permits the IO/officer in charge of the police station for further investigation in respect of an offence after report under subsection (2) of section 173 has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Therefore, there cannot be a further investigation as provided under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. after a report under subsection (2) of section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate and that too on the grounds which are the defences of the accused. The powers which are available for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. would be available only to the IO/officer in charge of the police station. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such the learned C.J.M. was right in rejecting the applications Exhs.28 & 31 – the applications which were submitted by the accused for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and consequently the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat has materially erred in interfering with the orders passed by the learned C.J.M. below Exhs.28 & 31 and consequently ordering further investigation. At this stage the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005)1 SCC 568 is required to be referred to. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. It is further observed that no provision of Cr.P.C. grants to the accused any right to file any material or documents at the stage of framing of the charge. It is further observed that right is granted only at the stage of trial. If that be so, there cannot be any further investigation at the instance of the accused and that too after the charge-sheet is filed on the grounds which in fact are their defences, which are required to be considered at the time of trial. 8. It cannot be disputed that even the learned Magistrate does not possess any powers and/or inherent powers for ordering further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and as stated herein above, the powers for further investigation are only vested in the officer incharge of the police station/IO only. 8. It cannot be disputed that even the learned Magistrate does not possess any powers and/or inherent powers for ordering further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and as stated herein above, the powers for further investigation are only vested in the officer incharge of the police station/IO only. In the present case, the learned Revisional Court has materially erred in not appreciating the scope of further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. that too at the instance of the accused and when the charge-sheet was already filed and even the grounds which are in fact the defences of the accused. The revisional court has also not properly appreciated the fact that in the present case, Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on the Magistrate to pass an order under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and that right is exclusively with the investigating agency and therefore, in absence of specific provision, the learned Magistrate has no power to pass order for further investigation. 8.1. It is also required to be noted at this stage that in the present case charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons on 22.04.2010 and the learned C.J.M. took cognizance against the accused and even the learned C.J.M. issued the summonses against the accused on 23.04.2010 and after the learned C.J.M. took cognizance and issued summonses against the accused, the accused persons submitted the application Exhs.28 & 31 for further investigation after a period of one year and two months. Therefore, the question which is required to be considered by this Court is, whether after the I.O. has submitted that charge-sheet against the accused persons and the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and issued the summonses against the accused, an application for further investigation that too at the instance of the accused is permissible or not? Considering section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and for the reasons stated herein above, as such the aforesaid would not be permissible. In the case of Randhir Singh Rana (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of the police report and after appearance of the accused, cannot order of his own, further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. in the case. In the case of Randhir Singh Rana (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of the police report and after appearance of the accused, cannot order of his own, further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. in the case. In the case of Reeta Nag (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that when no application has been made by the investigating authorities for conducting further investigation as permitted under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., other course of action open to the Magistrate is to take recourse to the provisions of section 319 of the Code at the stage of trial. In the case of Miteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel and Anr. (Supra), the learned single Judge of this Court had an occasion to consider the court's powers to direct further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and it is held that court cannot, after cognizance is taken, direct further investigation by police. It is further held, however, the Court has power to direct further investigation before cognizance is taken. It is further observed that however, the powers of the police under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to investigate further even after charge-sheet is filed or cognizance is taken is unfettered. Thus, considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction and/or powers to order further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., after submitting the charge-sheet by the police, on his own. Similarly, there cannot be any further investigation after the report is submitted against the accused, at the instance of the accused and more particularly when the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and issued the summonses against the accused and that too on the grounds which can be said to be the defences of the accused, which are required to be considered at the time of trial. 8.2. Now, so far as the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the accused referred to herein above and with respect to the fair investigation etc. are concerned, as such there cannot be any dispute with respect to proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 8.2. Now, so far as the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the accused referred to herein above and with respect to the fair investigation etc. are concerned, as such there cannot be any dispute with respect to proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. However, the question is with respect to exercise of powers of further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. that too after the report has been submitted by the I.O. against the accused and the learned C.J.M. has taken the cognizance and issued the summonses against the accused. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned advocates appearing for the original accused would not be of any assistance to them in the facts of the present case and more particularly with respect to the controversy in the present revision application. 9. Now, so far as the objection raised by the learned advocate appearing for the accused with respect to the maintainability of the present revision application against the order passed by the learned Sessions Court granting further investigation on the ground that the same is an interlocutory order is concerned, the objection raised cannot be sustained. It has been found that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court permitting further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is wholly without jurisdiction in as much as there cannot be further investigation after the charge-sheet has been submitted and the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and issued summonses against the accused and that too at the instance of the accused and on the grounds which are as such the defences of the accused which are required to be considered at the time of trial. Under the circumstances, the interference of this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction against the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional court is called for. 9.1. Even the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court also deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the same has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainant. It is the case on behalf of the complainant that against the order rejecting the application for further investigation, revision application before the learned Sessions Court was not maintainable and even if maintainable, on merits the application for further investigation was required to be dismissed. It is the case on behalf of the complainant that against the order rejecting the application for further investigation, revision application before the learned Sessions Court was not maintainable and even if maintainable, on merits the application for further investigation was required to be dismissed. Under the circumstances, if the complainant would have been joined as a party respondent to the revision application before the learned Sessions Court, the complainant would have raised the aforesaid objections and/or would have made the submissions on merits. By not joining the complainant in the revision application and by not giving an opportunity to the complainant before the revisional court, it has caused great prejudice to the complainant. At this stage the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh Rana (Supra) is required to be referred to. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the original complainant filed the complaint in the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi at Patiala House Court under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused and accompanied by an application under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. That the learned Magistrate refused to direct investigation in the matter in terms of section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and proceeded further under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Against the aforesaid, the complainant preferred revision application before the High Court impleading the State only as a party and High Court set aside the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the absence of the accused and directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to examine the matter fresh after calling for a report from the police authorities. Against the order passed by the High Court, the accused approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court by observing that had an opportunity of being given to the appellant (accused), he could have shows that no revision application was maintainable and/or even otherwise, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. Similar analogy can be applied to the facts of the case on hand. Similar analogy can be applied to the facts of the case on hand. In the present case, if the petitioner – complainant would have been given an opportunity of hearing, he could have shown that no revision application was maintainable and/or even otherwise, no case has been made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the applications for further investigation. 9.2. In the present case even the conduct on the part of the subsequent I.O. and even the accused deserves serious consideration. In the present case, admittedly, the subsequent I.O. Shri Munshi took over the charge of the investigation/further investigation on 06.03.2012 and within a period of 3 days only he has alleged to have conducted the further investigation (pursuant to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat) and submitted the interim further investigation report on 09.03.2012. It is required to be noted that deliberately he submitted the interim further investigation report dated 09.03.2012 in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat directly and not even through Special Public Prosecutor. As such there is no provision and/or there was no requirement and/or necessity of submitting the interim further investigation report and that too in the Court where no proceedings were pending. Similarly, he submitted another interim further investigation report on 10.04.2012 and again he directly submitted the same in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat where no proceedings were pending. It appears from the interim further investigation report and it is not in dispute that as such subsequent I.O. was aware of the pendency of the present revision application and still he submitted the interim further investigation reports in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat as if he wanted to oblige and/or favour the accused persons. On perusal of the interim further investigation reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012, it appears that the said I.O. has virtually given the finding and virtually acquitted the accused persons. As stated herein above, as such there is no provision for submitting the interim further investigation reports. A further investigation report on further investigation is required to be submitted after the further investigation by the I.O. is concluded. As stated herein above, as such there is no provision for submitting the interim further investigation reports. A further investigation report on further investigation is required to be submitted after the further investigation by the I.O. is concluded. Even after further investigation, if a further investigation report is to be submitted, the same is required to be submitted before the concerned Magistrate Court and not before the Revisional Court where no proceedings were pending. It appears that by giving the interim further investigation report despite having knowledge that the present revision application is pending and this Court has seized of the matter, the I.O. has tried to make the present proceedings infructuous. At this stage it is required to be noted that Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the investigating agency and the State has made a categorical statement that the further investigation reports submitted by the subsequent officer cannot be sustained and the State disowns the same and they cannot be relied upon in any proceedings and the same are required to be quashed and set aside. Thus, it prima facie appears that by submitting the aforesaid interim further investigation reports, the subsequent I.O. has acted malafidely and with a view to help the accused persons. It is required to be noted at this stage that as such after the charge-sheet/report was submitted by the I.O. against the accused persons in the court of learned CJM, the learned C.J.M. took the cognizance and issued the summonses against the accused and the accused appeared before the learned C.J.M. and even their discharge applications were rejected by the learned C.J.M. which came to be confirmed by the learned Sessions Court against which special criminal application was pending before this Court and in the meantime and despite having knowledge and awareness of the aforesaid proceedings, he has submitted the interim further investigation reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 which otherwise is not permissible. 9.3. Even the conduct on the part of the accused also deserves serious consideration. After completing the investigation and having found prima facie case against the accused, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons in the Court of learned C.J.M. and the learned C.J.M. not only took the cognizance but even issued the summonses against the accused persons. 9.3. Even the conduct on the part of the accused also deserves serious consideration. After completing the investigation and having found prima facie case against the accused, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons in the Court of learned C.J.M. and the learned C.J.M. not only took the cognizance but even issued the summonses against the accused persons. That thereafter, after a period of one year and two months, the accused submitted the application Exhs.28 and 31 for further investigation and also simultaneously submitted the application Exhs.29 and 32 for discharge. Simultaneously, the accused also submitted an application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 before the learned C.J.M. against the original complainant with a prayer for registering an FIR under section 154(2) Cr.P.C. and in the alternative for investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. making same allegations which were mentioned while submitting the applications for further investigation – Exhs.28 & 31. That the applications for discharge of the accused came to be dismissed by the learned C.J.M. against which the accused persons preferred criminal revision application before the learned Sessions Court, Surat being Criminal Revision Application No.428 of 2011, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Court by order dated 06.01.2012 against which Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 came to be preferred by the accused, which was pending before this Court. In the meantime, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order on 10.01.2012 and thereafter, after a period of 2 months, the further investigation was handed over to the present I.O. Shri Munshi on 06.03.2012, who submitted the interim further investigation reports on 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 virtually giving clean chit/acquitting the accused and immediately on receipt of the said reports [it is also required to be considered how the accused got the copies of those reports], the accused persons withdrew the Special Criminal Application No.727 of 2012 pending before this Court with a liberty to file fresh application for discharge after investigation is over. At this stage it is required to be noted that while withdrawing the aforesaid special criminal application with above liberty, nothing was disclosed before this court that in between there is an order passed by the learned sessions court in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 permitting the further investigation and there are interim further investigation reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 and even this Court was also kept in dark. Even on merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge permitting further investigation cannot be sustained. 9.4. Considering the impugned order it appears that the accused sought further investigation on the grounds which are as such their defences which are required to be considered at the time of trial. While passing the impugned judgment and order even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated and/or considered the scope and ambit of the further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated and/or considered the fact that as such after the report was filed by the I.O. and the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and issued the summonses against the accused, there cannot be any further investigation that too at the instance of the accused and on the grounds which are as such the defences of the accused which are required to be considered at the time of trial. Under the circumstances, even on merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and all consequential further investigation reports/interim further investigation reports submitted by the I.O. are not required to be acted upon in any proceedings whatsoever. At this stage it is required to be noted that even the learned Special Public Prosecutor has also made a categorical statement that the interim further investigation reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 and/or further investigation reports shall not be acted upon in any manner whatsoever and in any proceedings. At this stage it is required to be noted that even the learned Special Public Prosecutor has also made a categorical statement that the interim further investigation reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 and/or further investigation reports shall not be acted upon in any manner whatsoever and in any proceedings. Under the circumstances it is directed that any interim further investigation reports/further investigation report pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat shall not be acted upon in any manner whatsoever in any other proceedings and they are to be treated as non est. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent. Misc. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1746 of 2012 : So far as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1746 of 2012 in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 submitted by the applicants herein – original accused Nos.2 to 6 for permitting them to be joined as party respondents in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 is concerned, it is required to be noted that Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 has been preferred by the original complainant challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011, which was preferred by the original accused No.1 only against the order passed below Exh.28 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat rejecting his application for further investigation. It is required to be noted that so far as the applicants herein – original accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, their application for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was also rejected by the learned Additional CJM, however, they did not challenge the same before the Revisional Court. As stated herein above, only the original accused No.1 challenged the order of rejection of the prayer of further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011. Under the circumstances, so far as the applicants herein – original accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, the order passed by the learned Additional C.J.M. rejecting their application for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. has attained finality as they did not challenge the same before the Revisional Court. Under the circumstances, so far as the applicants herein – original accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, the order passed by the learned Additional C.J.M. rejecting their application for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. has attained finality as they did not challenge the same before the Revisional Court. Under the circumstances, now, they cannot be permitted to be joined as party respondents in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 preferred against the order passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011, which was filed by the original accused No.1 only. It is required to be noted that so far as original accused No.1 is concerned, he is already a respondent in main Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 and he has been heard fully and in extenso. It is also required to be noted that as such the original accused Nos.2 to 6 have not challenged the order passed by the learned Additional C.J.M. rejecting their application for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and even till date they have never challenged the said order. Under the circumstances, present application permitting the applicants to be joined as party respondents in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012: So far as Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 preferred by the original revisionist challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the said Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 on merits, however, has disposed of the said Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 in view of his order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011. Therefore, as such the said revision application which was preferred against the order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M. in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 independently and on merits. Therefore, as such the said revision application which was preferred against the order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M. in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 independently and on merits. Under the circumstances, so far as the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge disposing of Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 is concerned, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat to consider the same and decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law and on merits to consider the legality and validity of the order impugned in the said revision application. Under the circumstances, without expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties and with respect to the legality and validity of the order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M. in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011, impugned order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned C.J.M. in Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned revisional court to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law and on merits. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits with respect to the legality and validity of the order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M., Surat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 and all the contentions which may be available to the respective parties are kept open which has to be considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in accordance with law and on merits. Considering the fact that as the learned C.J.M. dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 and therefore, to that extent the order was passed in favour of the original respondents – proposed accused in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011, it will be open for the original opponents – proposed accused of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 to submit an appropriate application permitting them to be joined as party respondents in the said Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 and as and when such an application is made, the same be considered by the learned revisional court in accordance with law, for which also this Court has not expressed anything on merits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent so far as Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 is concerned. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 is allowed as stated herein above and the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently all further steps/action pursuant to the said order are quashed and set aside and consequently interim further investigation reports dated 09.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 are also quashed and set aside and it is directed that the said reports and/or any other further investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the impugned order are not to be implemented at all in any proceedings in any manner whatsoever and the same are directed to be treated as non est. Misc. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1746 of 2012 in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 is hereby dismissed as stated herein above. Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 is hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent and the impugned order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned C.J.M. in Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned revisional court to decide the said revision application afresh in accordance with law and on merits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only with above direction and observations. Order accordingly.