Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner/Defacto Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 25/8/2010 in Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 in C.C.No.28 of 2008 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008, on 25/8/2010, has inter alia observed that there is no provision for reinvestigation after filing of the final report and after the examination of witnesses and further that some more Accused is involved in the examination of the crime they can be added and in the interest of Justice, ultimately dismissed the Petition. 3. Assailing the correctness of the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 on 25/8/2010, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Defacto Complainant contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the necessary ingredients of section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. 4. It is the further submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the trial Court has failed to note neither the Police nor the Accused persons have chosen to file counter to Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 and as a matter of fact, the trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the said Miscellaneous Petition on the main ground that after the final report, such Petition is not maintainable. 5. The main contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioners Lower Court Counsel has been present for almost all the hearing of Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008, but on 25/8/2010, the trial Court has been perforced to dismiss the said Miscellaneous Petition without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner's side and in this regard, there is violation of the principles of natural Justice. 6. Lastly, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 is a non-speaking order and as such the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of Justice. 7. Per contra, the Respondents 1 to 4 supported the dismissal order of Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 passed on 25/8/2010 by the trial Court. 8. Lastly, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 is a non-speaking order and as such the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of Justice. 7. Per contra, the Respondents 1 to 4 supported the dismissal order of Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 passed on 25/8/2010 by the trial Court. 8. The Revision Petitioner has filed a sworn affidavit dated 22/1/2013 before this Court inter alia stating that due to ill-health of the Petitioner, he has not been in a position to attend the Court proceedings on 25/8/2010 and further, his Counsel was on the way from the District Court, Tiruchirapalli could not reach the trial Court at Lalgudi in time. In the meanwhile, the trial Court as passed the dismissal order in Crl.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 in C.C.No.28 of 2008 on 25/8/2010. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defacto Complainant cites the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in AZIJA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. {2012 (1) C.L.T – 582}, wherein it is held that “Every citizen of this country has a right to get his or her complaint properly investigated. The legal framework of investigation provided under our laws cannot be made selectively available only to some persons and denied to others.“ Further, it is also observed that “A fair and proper investigation is always conducive to the ends of justice and for establishing rule of law and maintaining proper balance in law and order.” 10. It is to be noted that the Honourable Supreme Court in REETA NAG VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS {2009(4) MLJ (Crl.) 1004 (SC)}, at special page 1005, wherein, it is held thus: "Once a charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and either charge is framed or the accused are discharges, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence or on the application made by the investigating authorities permit further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code. The Magistrate cannot suo moto direct a further investigation under Section 173(8) or direct reinvestigation of the case, on account of the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code." 11. Furthermore, in the decision E.JEEVANKUMAR C. STATE AND ANOTHER – 2011 Cri.L.J.418 at special page 423, wherein at paragraph Nos.20 to 22, it is observed as under: "20. The Magistrate cannot suo moto direct a further investigation under Section 173(8) or direct reinvestigation of the case, on account of the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code." 11. Furthermore, in the decision E.JEEVANKUMAR C. STATE AND ANOTHER – 2011 Cri.L.J.418 at special page 423, wherein at paragraph Nos.20 to 22, it is observed as under: "20. Sub-section (8) to Section 173 of Cr.P.C. goes thus: "173.(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, whereupon 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)". 21. The above said provisions enables the Judicial Magistrate to issue order for further investigation in given circumstances. It is nowhere spelt out in Cr.P.C. that the defacto complainant may file application requesting direction from the Court for further investigation or re-investigation. The Court can exercise its jurisdiction only within the realm of the Code. Indisputably, the investigating agency as per sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. can request the Court to grant permission to investigate into the matter further. It does not provide right to the defacto complainant to file such application. 22. Had the legislature intended to provide right to the defacto complainant for asking the Court for re-investigation or further investigation, it would have incorporated required terms in the provision. When the section does not curtain the powers of the investigating Officer to take up further Investigation, it has not provided any procedure enabling the defacto complainant to take initiative to place request for further investigation. The law does not postulate any power on the Judicial Magistrate to direct further investigation at the behest of the defacto complainant. Code of Criminal Procedure contains exhaustive schemes, elaborately dealing with powers of police and Courts and procedures, in extenso, to be observed by them. When it is not empowered for Judicial Magistrate to order further investigation at the request of the defacto complainant, he cannot assume power to direct the same. 12. Code of Criminal Procedure contains exhaustive schemes, elaborately dealing with powers of police and Courts and procedures, in extenso, to be observed by them. When it is not empowered for Judicial Magistrate to order further investigation at the request of the defacto complainant, he cannot assume power to direct the same. 12. That apart, in the decision A.MOHAN AND OTHERS V. STATE REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, COLLEROON POLICE STATION, TRICHY AND ANOTHER - 2012(2) MLJ (Crl) 767, wherein, it is held that “Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the Defacto Complainant is not entitled to seek further investigation”. 13. The statutory provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly point out that a Court of Law cannot interfere with the investigation as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA V. PRAKASH P. HINDUJA ( AIR 2003 SC 2612 ). 14. Indeed, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to return the challan for further investigation, though the investigating agency has right to make further investigation, though the investigating agency has right to make further investigation and submit supplementary charge-sheet in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, as per decision ASHOK KUMAR KOUL Vs. STATE OF J & K {2004 (3) CRIMES 46 (52, 53) (J & K). 15. This Court aptly points out the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in RANDHIRSINGH RANA V. STATE(DELHI ADMINISTRATION ( AIR 1997 SC 639 ), wherein it is held that “The Learned Judicial Magistrate is not competent to order further investigation after taking cognizance of the offences and after the appearance of the Accused before him in pursuance of issuance of process except giving formal permission to make further investigation to police when fresh facts come to light (when police informs and seeks permission of this Court).” 16. An opportunity of hearing or show cause notice is necessary to the Complainant before a complaint case is cancelled or closed, in the considered opinion of this Court. An opportunity of hearing or show cause notice is necessary to the Complainant before a complaint case is cancelled or closed, in the considered opinion of this Court. Where the Learned Judicial Magistrate to whom Report is forwarded under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, he must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report as per decision in PANCHAM SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 1988(2) Crimes 248 (All). Even the rejection of Final Report without assigning any reason is improper, as opined by this Court. When the Police after investigation files a Final Report in Law, a copy of the Final Report is to be given to the informant and an opportunity of Hearing shall also to be given to him/her. 17. Even when the Learned Judicial Magistrate has accepted the representation under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. on fresh material, further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., is permissible by the same agency which originally investigated the case. Where further investigation brings new material, the Learned Judicial Magistrate is not barred from taking cognizance merely because he has accepted the Final Report. 18. Where the police after investigation filed Final Report, a copy of Final Report would be given to the informant and an opportunity of Hearing shall also be given to him as per decision in PRAMOD BEHL V. STATE OF JHARKHAND reported in 2004 Crl.L.J. NOC 362 (Jhar). 19. It is to be noted that a Protest Petition filed by the informant shall be taken by the Judicial Magistrate and regarded as a continuation of the case filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Where the Final Report is accepted and Protest Petition thereto is rejected, the Learned Judicial Magistrate can still take cognizance upon a complaint or a Protest Petition. On the same or similar allegations of fact, the subsequent complaint is not barred as per decision in YASIN V. SAJJAD HUSSAI reported in 1996 Crl.L.J. 747 (748). 20. On the same or similar allegations of fact, the subsequent complaint is not barred as per decision in YASIN V. SAJJAD HUSSAI reported in 1996 Crl.L.J. 747 (748). 20. In the present case on hand in law, the Petitioner/Defacto Complainant has no locus standi to make a plea for further investigation and it is within the purview and ambit of the First Respondent/Complainant to ask for reinvestigation based on fresh material which comes to light. The settled legal position is that even the acceptance of final report will not preclude the Learned Judicial Magistrate from taking cognizance of the offence. It is latently and patently clear that the Petitioner/Complainant has no locus standi to project Cr.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court (praying for further investigation of the case under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.) and as such, the said M.P., is not maintainable in liminie. Moreover, the trial Court, while dismissing C.M.P.No.3434 of 2008, on 25/8/2010 has observed that the Petitioner has failed to include some other Accused in C.C.No.28 of 2008 and also to include some I.P.C Sections and prayed for reinvestigation. Even when M.P., has been taken up for hearing on 25/8/2010, the Petitioner has not been present. To put it succinctly, on going through the contents of the order passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi in Cr.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 dated 25/8/2010, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the said order does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of Law. Resultantly, this Criminal Revision Petition fails. 21. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The Order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi in Cr.M.P.No.3344 of 2008 dated 25/8/2010 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Criminal Revision Petition. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition will not preclude the Petitioner/ Complainant to seek appropriate remedy, if any, before the Trial Court, by filing appropriate Application/Petition in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, if he is so advised.