Judgment 1. This criminal revision arises against the order of dismissal of discharge petition filed by petitioners under section 227 of Cr.P.C., passed in Crl.M.P. No.7566 of 2014 in S.C.No.99 of 2014 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, dated 18.08.2014. 2. The registration of Crime No.94 of 2011 on the file of the second respondent leading to S.C.No.99 of 2014 arises owing to wife of the first petitioner viz., Mymoon Kani having committed suicide on 03.02.2011. Charge sheet has been filed by the police against the first petitioner/husband and second petitioner, his mother, as also against five other members of the family of the first petitioner under Section 174 (3) Cr.P.C., later altered to 498(A), 304(B) r/w.34 of IPC. Accepting the final report, the case was committed for trial before learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. Pending sessions case, the petitioners along with five others have moved Crl.M.P.No.7566 of 2014 in S.C.No.99 of 2014 seeking discharge. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the discharge petition insofar as the other accused are concerned, but dismissed the same as regards petitioners, who are the husband and mother in law of the deceased. Hence, the present Criminal Revision is filed by petitioners challenging the order of dismissal of discharge petition in respect of these petitioners. 3. Heard Mr.V.T.Narendrian, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for respondent. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 14.02.2011 ruled out any wrong doing by the petitioners. A reading of the inquest report would show that one Mohamed Ali s/o.Mohamed Abubacker and Mohamed Gani s/o. Umarkarthaf, members of the local Jamath as also one Liakath Ali, landlord of the first petitioner, had interacted with the first petitioner as also the deceased girl on the night of 03.02.2011 and afforded them advice. It is the submission that in the conduct of investigation the prosecution conveniently has avoided their examination. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that Liakath Ali, landlord of first petitioner had been examined by the Investigating Officer. Further, the suicide note left by the deceased also had been recovered. The same implicated these petitioners. He would, therefore, submit that upon proper appreciation, the Court below has thought it fit to proceed further as far as the present petitioners are concerned even while discharging the other accused. 6. Further, the suicide note left by the deceased also had been recovered. The same implicated these petitioners. He would, therefore, submit that upon proper appreciation, the Court below has thought it fit to proceed further as far as the present petitioners are concerned even while discharging the other accused. 6. On considering the rival submissions and perusal of materials available, this Court is of the view that the investigation in the case can at best be termed an incomplete one. It is seen that of all the persons examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer during his inquest only the land lord of the first petitioner has been examined by the investigating agency and only as a mahazar witness. The investigating officer may well arrive at a conclusion different than that of the Revenue Divisional Officer conducting the inquest. Oft is it forgotten that the purpose of inquest only is to ascertain the cause of death as distinct from the factors leading thereto, the same being in the realm of investigation. Even so, when the inquest informs of interaction of persons with the accused as also the deceased shortly before her death, interests of justice and fair play would require the investigating officer to examine also such persons. 7. The finding above informed would not be reason enough to allow the petition seeking discharge. It only would be appropriate for this Court to pass the following order: i. Further investigation in Crime No.94 of 2011 on the file of the second respondent shall be conducted by the first respondent; ii. the proceedings in S.C.No.99 of 2014 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, shall be stayed pending the report of such further investigation; and iii. upon receipt of such report, the Court may proceed further in the case. The Court below may, in doing so, also entertain a fresh petition for discharge by the petitioners. However, the same shall be considered solely upon merits without in any manner being influenced by the present order. This Criminal Revision is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.