Judgment : 1. The de-facto complainant in C.C.No.124 of 2010 is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. It is the case of the de-facto complainant that one Durairaj (died), Murugesan, Rajavel and Cheliyan sold certain properties to the de-facto complainant though they knew that those properties were under land acquisition proceedings. The de-facto complainant filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate based on which a direction was issued to the respondent police to register a case and investigate. The police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2008 on 03.09.2008 for offences under Sections 420 r/w. 120(B) I.P.C. against Durairaj (A1), Murugesan (A2), Rajavel (A3), Cheliyan (A4). After completing investigation, the police filed a final report on 28.09.2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy for offence under Section 420 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The case was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and process was issued to all the accused and they appeared before the Court. Thereafter, one of the accused Cheliyan approached this Court for a direction to the trial Court to complete the case in a time-bound manner because this case was affecting the official career in the Co-operative Department. This Court by order dated 30.08.2013 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13423 of 2013 has directed the trial Court to dispose of C.C.No.124 of 2010 within a period of six months. The trial Court took the case on file and when it issued witness summons to the de-facto complainant, she did not appear before the Court. Therefore, the trial Court was forced to issue a bailable warrant to secure her presence for giving evidence. The de-facto complainant appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 05.11.2013 and instead of giving evidence, filed an application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. stating that one V.Philomin Raj and S.Jagadeesan who were the principals who gave power of attorney to Murugesan and Durairaj respectively should also be made as accused. She also contented that the Director of National Highways Authority of India should have to be examined by the police. The trial Court by a well considered order dismissed the application aggrieved by which this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a final report is filed, it is the duty of the Court to issue a notice to the de-facto complainant. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law. The trial Court by a well considered order dismissed the application aggrieved by which this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a final report is filed, it is the duty of the Court to issue a notice to the de-facto complainant. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law. In this case, the FIR was registered at the behest of the de-facto complainant and the FIR discloses the involvement of only four persons. The investigation was completed by the police and charge sheet was filed against four persons. If the police had dropped prosecution against any person, then the duty is cast upon the Magistrate to issue notice to the de-facto complainant and to find out whether the police had acted within the parameters of the law. In this case, this was not done and the de-facto complainant had chosen to come to the Court only in the year 2013 after she received witness summons. Be that as it may, this Court has to see whether the prayer of the de-facto complainant for further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. is bona fide. The trial Court is bound by this Court's order dated 30.08.2013 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13423 of 2013 and is under compulsion to comply with this order and complete the trial within a period of six months. At this juncture, the de-facto complainant has approached this Court for further investigation which in my opinion will further prolong the time. At the same time, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that V.Philomin Raj and S.Jagadeesan who had given power of attorney to Murugesan and Durairaj in respect of a land which was under acquisition cannot feign totally innocence, has some force. In such circumstances, I direct the trial Court to proceed with the taking of evidence and in the course of the trial if the involvement of the land owners in the offence surfaces then the trial Court will be well within its right to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. and include them as accused.