JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera for the applicant and Mr. Ashish Dagli, the learned advocate nos.2 to 7, and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent no.1. 2. Perused the record. The present petition is filed by the complainant in the Sessions Case No. 76 of 2012 (Old Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012), pending before the Sessions Court at Limbdi, challenging the order dated 05/10/2013 below Exh.14 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi. Such application at Exh.14 is submitted by some of the accused, who are respondent nos.2 to 7 herein praying for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code” for short) contending that since there is a cross case, some material facts have now been disclosed and known to them and when there is a material contradiction in the investigation, considering the facts of both the FIRs and when the investigation agency has failed to record the statement of Vishwajit and Giriraj, though initially, the quarrel had started between them, there must be further investigation. The Sessions Court has, by impugned order after hearing both the sides, ordered further investigation under Section173(8) of the Code and directed the Circle Police Inspector of Muli to further investigate the complaint so far as the Cross Sessions Case No.80 of 2012 is concerned and to file his report within a period of 30 days. Since both the cases are listed together, the Sessions Court has recorded in such impugned order that though Giriraj and Vishwajit are material witnesses, their statements are not recorded and that, though Ghanshyambhai Manubhai and Jagatsinh Manubhai are shown as the injured witnesses with Thakarshibhai Mavjibhai, the treatment papers and other relevant documents are not included in the charge-sheet. The witnesses whose statements are not recorded by the Investigating Officer i.e. Giriraj Jilubhai and Vishwajit Umedsang have in fact filed affidavit at Exh.27 and 28 before the Sessions Court confirming that they are aware about the facts of the incident and their statements have not been recorded by the Investigating Agency. Therefore, prima-facie, the Sessions Court has considered that the Investigating Officer has not investigated offences properly and therefore, ordered to investigate further and to file report. 3. Therefore, prima-facie, the Sessions Court has considered that the Investigating Officer has not investigated offences properly and therefore, ordered to investigate further and to file report. 3. The record shows that now the statements of those witnesses are available on record, wherein, there is a disclosure about certain facts, but, unfortunately, such statements are not included in the charge-sheet and these witnesses are not disclosed as the witnesses in the charge-sheet. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as the Investigating Officer has to either investigate further to prove the offence. If proper investigation is carried out and the statements of concerned witnesses, so also, the treatment papers of injured are collected during the investigation then there may not be need to direct further investigation by the impugned order. Unfortunately, implementation and execution of the order has been stayed by order dated 16/01/2014 and thereby, by all probability, the trial Court should have waited for proceeding further. However, by order dated 11/11/2016, when this Court has inquired about the status of the Sessions Case No. 76 of 2012 (Old Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012), the Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, by his order dated 23/11/2013 clarified that the Sessions Case is pending for framing the charge pursuant to the interim relief granted in this matter as disclosed herein above. 4. The respondent no.3 herein has filed an affidavit-in-reply on 09/07/2014 objecting to allow such application contending that the present petitioner is unnecessarily delaying the matter inasmuch as though the impugned order is dated 05/10/2013 and though the Investigating Officer completed his investigation and filed his report before the Sessions Court before this Court has stayed the impugned order, further contending that further investigation is in the interest of justice. Perusal of such affidavit and available material on record makes it clear that the petitioner is a complainant and thereby, if there is further investigation to confirm the particular evidence against the particular accused, the complainant should not have objected to it so as to avoid to bring the correct facts on record, more particularly, when there are cross complaints. 5. The petitioner is relying upon the case of Reeta Nag Vs. 5. The petitioner is relying upon the case of Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2009 (9) SCC 129 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed that the Magistrate has power to order further investigation, but he cannot pass order to reinvestigate after framing of charge. It is also held that the reinvestigation cannot be ordered suo moto by the Magistrate under Section 173(8) of the Code. However, overall facts and circumstances of the case herein makes it clear that this is not a case of either reinvestigation or further investigation, though the operative part of the impugned order discloses the word 'further investigation', because in fact, what the Court has done is by simply to compel the Investigating Officer to produce on record his report with reference to what is alleged in the application, more particularly, when the evidence of some of the witnesses so also the medical evidence have been omitted by the Investigating Officer to produce with charge-sheet. Therefore, in my humble opinion, this judgment would not help the petitioner though it is stated that the only option available to the court is to take recourse to the provisions of Section-319 of the Code at the stage of trial, because here there is no case to add any other person as an accused, but the only issue is with reference to production and inclusion of evidence, which is already available at the end of prosecuting agency, in the charge-sheet so as to bring truth before the Court. It cannot be ignored that ultimately the Court has to find out the truth and not to see that how either of the party succeeds in the litigation. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not see any substance in the petition and hence, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. FURTHER ORDER: Learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera has requested to stay the operation of this order for six weeks and to continue interim relief granted earlier. Request is accepted as prayed for.