Judgment 1. This revision arises against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, passed in C.M.P.No.1649 of 2009 in C.S.No.85 of 2009, on 16.06.2009. 2. Heard learned counsel on either side. 3. The Court below has dismissed the petition moved by the petitioner/ defacto complainant seeking further investigation concerning the case in Crime No.7 of 2009 primarily on the reasoning that such a petition was not maintainable at the instance of the defacto complainant. The decision in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [2009) 9 SCC 129] has been doubted in the decision in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others[ 2013 (5) SCC 762 ] in the light of the Three Judge Bench decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police[ 1985 (2) SCC 537 ]. This Court, under orders in Crl.R.C.No.1450 of 2007, under orders dated 17.08.2011, has held thus: “7. ...............Against a catena of judgments which inform/suggest that further investigation may be directed by the Magistrate acting suo motu, the judgment in (2009) 9 SCC 129 [Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal & Ors.], stands alone. In 1997 (7) SCC 614 [Union Public Service Commission v. S.Papaiah], the Honourable Apex Court found improper the action of the Magistrate in accepting the final report and closing the case despite the informant having brought to the notice of the Magistrate the shortcomings necessitating further investigation. It has for long been settled law that before acceptance of a final report seeking closure of a case it is necessary to put the informant/de facto complainant on notice (see 1985 (2) SCC 537 [Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police]). If the Magistrate upon issuing such mandatory notice and hearing the informant/ de facto complainant cannot direct further investigation in an appropriate case then the very purpose of issue of notice before acceptance of the final report would stand lost........” Since the reasoning of the trial Court offends the judgment of the Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi's case, this Criminal Revision stands allowed. The order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, passed in C.M.P.No.1649 of 2009 in C.S.No.85 of 2009, on 16.06.2009, stands set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The matter is remitted back to learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, who shall take up C.M.P.No.1649 of 2009 in C.S.No.85 of 2009 for fresh consideration, deal with the same on merits and proceed further in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The matter is remitted back to learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, who shall take up C.M.P.No.1649 of 2009 in C.S.No.85 of 2009 for fresh consideration, deal with the same on merits and proceed further in accordance with law. It is made clear that in considering the petition for further investigation, the Court below shall in no manner be influenced by the fact that this revision is allowed. In other words, it is entirely open to the Court below to deal with the issue solely on merits and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.