Judgment 1. This is second round of litigation that is coming up before me. Earlier I passed the following order on 18.03.2014, in which I have discussed the entire facts of the case. I am extracting the order passed by me earlier: "This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the docket order dated 18.06.2013 wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, has passed the following orders: "A1 to A4 absent case records perused Amended final report filed by the complainant/police is not accepted already JM No.I Court took cognizance in CC 7/2010 subsequently case transfer to this court and renumber as CC 49/12 thus for furnishing copies A1 to A4 are directed to appear on 2.7.13. Sd./V.Venkatesaperumal JM-II, Sivaganga." 2. This case seems to be having a chequered history. First, one Amal Raj lodged a complaint on 19.01.2004 against four persons based on which a case in District Crime Branch, Sivagangai, Crime No.3 of 2006 for the offence under Section 406 IPC was registered and investigation was carried on. After investigation, the Investigating Officer closed the case as Mistake of Fact on 03.02.2007 stating that it is civil in nature. The de-facto complainant filed a protest petition. Pursuant to which, further investigation was ordered by the Magistrate. The Deputy Superintendent of Police of District Crime Branch conducted the investigation and filed a final report on 24.12.2009 for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC against the four accused. While so, the accused seem to have approached this Court stating that there was no opportunity given to them during the course of investigation to place their materials before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Various orders were passed by this Court on these petitions. I am not going into those orders. Ultimately, a further investigation was done by another Deputy Superintendent of Police who filed a final report on 18.02.2011 stating that it is purely a civil case and there is no offence made out. On this final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the aforesaid order on 18.06.2013 which is impugned in this revision petition. This order passed by the learned Magistrate is laconic and does not give any reason for rejecting the final report that was filed on 18.02.2011. On this final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the aforesaid order on 18.06.2013 which is impugned in this revision petition. This order passed by the learned Magistrate is laconic and does not give any reason for rejecting the final report that was filed on 18.02.2011. This Court is surprised to note that the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was filed on 18.02.2011 and from then onwards, upto 18.06.2013 it seems no steps have been taken on the supplementary final report. Even on 18.06.2013, the learned Magistrate has refused to accept the amended final report on the ground that Judicial Magistrate No.I had already taken cognizance of the case and that the case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai and renumbered as C.C.No.49 of 2012. Taking cognizance of the case is not a bar for the Magistrate to consider a final report filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. because the section itself says that further investigation can be done at any time. Hence, the order dated 18.06.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for considering the amended final report afresh and pass a speaking order as to whether he is accepting it or not. 3. With the above observation, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 2. After the matter was remitted to the trial Court for passing fresh orders, the Magistrate has passed a detailed order on 13.05.2014, which is assailed in this criminal revision petition. In the order impugned herein, the learned Magistrate has gone into the statements recorded by the Police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and has found that the de facto complainant-Amalraj has been sending money from abroad, with which A1 to A4 purchased properties in their names and alienated them without the knowledge of the de facto complainant. For instance, the first accused has purchased property in the name of his father and the other accused has siphoned funds from Gomathi Trust, to which the de facto complainant had sent substantial sum from abroad. 3. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of some of the witnesses it is clear that, the fourth accused has joined with A1 to A3 to dispose the properties that were purchased with the money sent by the de facto complainant. 3. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of some of the witnesses it is clear that, the fourth accused has joined with A1 to A3 to dispose the properties that were purchased with the money sent by the de facto complainant. In the light of the fact that there are sufficient materials against A4, the order of the Magistrate issuing process to A4 cannot be faulted with. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Magistrate should have accepted the report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., and if he is not accepting it, the case should be tried as a private complaint. In support of his proposition he relied upon the judgment of this Court in S.Karunanithi vs. Sivananda Rao and another reported in 2014-1 L.W.(Crl.)509, wherein this Court has held that if the Magistrate intends to take cognizance on a negative report filed by the police, then the case should proceed as a private complaint. The facts in this case is little different. Here the Magistrate had taken cognizance on the positive report filed by the police initially and subsequently, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C stating that it is a civil dispute. In such circumstances, the cognizance once taken by the Magistrate need not be undone, because the Magistrate has no such power to recall his own order. In any event, the Magistrate has taken into consideration the supplementary report filed by the police under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and has given the reasons for issuing process to the accused. In such circumstances, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.