Judgment 1. These Criminal Original Petitions are filed, seeking to set aside the orders dated 18.11.2014, passed in Crl.R.C.Nos.8 and 9 of 2014 by the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi and consequently to set aside the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5137 of 2013 in C.C.No.16 of 2003, dated 27.02.2014 and the suo motu order passed in C.C.No.16 of 2003 by learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothkudi. 2. Under order in Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2014 dated 18.11.2014, the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi upheld the decision of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi passed in Cr.M.P.No.5137 of 2013 in C.C.No.16 of 2003, permitting the defacto complainant/second respondent to engage a private counsel taking note of her contention that such permission may be limited to filing of written arguments. Under Order in Crl.R.C.No.9 of 2014, learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi upheld the decision of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi in C.C.No.16 of 2003 dated 27.02.2014, to include charge under Section 34 I.P.C. 3. The second respondent/defacto complainant painstakingly has pursued the case in C.C.No.16 of 2003 and approached this Court by way of revisions challenging the decision of discharge of A2 and A3 and again towards prosecuting A2 and A3 under Section 34 of I.P.C. and has been successful on both occasions. 4. This Court while passing orders on Revision in Crl.R.C.No.299 of 2013 on 05.06.2013, has observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as follows:- "14. It is pertinent to note that once a case has been remitted back to the Court below, it is the duty of the Court to see that whether charges have been properly framed or not. Further, on perusal, it is seen that at the initial stage of filing of the charge sheet itself it has been contended for inclusion of Section 34 IPC and further, at the time of framing 313 questioning, it is the duty of the learned Judicial Magistrate to frame the charge and put the question correctly with the available evidence. 15. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition filed by the de facto complainant was allowed and the order of the discharge made by the learned Judicial Magistrate has been set aside. It appears that in the meanwhile, before the lower Court, the case has been proceeded against A1. 15. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition filed by the de facto complainant was allowed and the order of the discharge made by the learned Judicial Magistrate has been set aside. It appears that in the meanwhile, before the lower Court, the case has been proceeded against A1. After the order of set aside has been made, the Trial Court has framed the charges without including Section 34 IPC, since it has been already deleted. That is the reason, the de facto complainant has filed this revision. Now, the case against A1 as well as A2 and A3 has been clubbed and the case has been reached the stage of arguments. At that time, the present application has been filed. By inclusion of Section 34 IPC, the accused will not be prejudiced. Consequently connected M.P. is closed." 5. Terming the order of this Court in Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 extracted above as mere observations, having no binding effect, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it would be open to canvass the merits of the decision of the Courts below. Terming the orders permitting the second respondent/defacto complainant to engage a counsel a consequential one he would seek interference therewith. 6. We also have perused the written arguments filed. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that charge under Section 34 of IPC could be included, only when there was a material to do so and in the instant case there was no such material. 8. On a perusal of the charge sheet, this Court finds that the defacto complainant's case is of she and first accused having purchased properties in their joint names when they were husband and wife. It is her contention that interest in the property stands transferred without her concurrence. 9. It is the contention of the prosecution that investigation in the case revealed transfer of property having been effected through recourse to proceedings under Section 74 of Registration Act, 1908. 10. Section 74 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows: "74. Procedure of Register on such application. 9. It is the contention of the prosecution that investigation in the case revealed transfer of property having been effected through recourse to proceedings under Section 74 of Registration Act, 1908. 10. Section 74 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows: "74. Procedure of Register on such application. - In such case, and also where such denial as aforesaid is made before a Registrar in respect of a document presented for registration to him, the Registrar shall, as soon as conveniently may be, enquire - (a) Whether the document has been executed; (b) Whether the requirements of the law for the time being in force have been complied with on the part of the applicant or person presenting the document for registration, as the case may be, so as to entitle the document to registration." 11.In enquiry proceedings under Section 74 of the Registration Act, 1908 the first accused, husband of the defacto complainant as also his brothers, accused Nos.2 and 3, one of whom is the petitioner herein and a document writer have been examined towards Registrar satisfying himself in accepting the document for registration. It is the prosecution case that the signature of the defacto complainant was forged in such document and thus offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 are alleged. 12. In the circumstances, it cannot be contended that there is no material to proceed against the petitioner with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. One further reason why these petitions are to be dismissed is that though preferred as Criminal Original Petitions, they really are second revisions by the same party attracting bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Hence, both the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.