S. Periyasamy vs State of Tamil Nadu and Another

C.S. Karnan, J.—The second respondent herein/de facto complainant had leveled a case against the revision petitioner herein/accused and

three others before the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai. The said case was forwarded to the C.B.C.I.D. for enquiry. The

C.B.C.I.D. Wing had registered a Criminal Case in Crime No. 1 of 2008 for the offence alleged u/s 120(B), 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 506(1)

IPC. On the basis of the F.I.R., investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police and he had come to the conclusion that the case was

unproven, therefore, the complaint was closed as ""Mistake of Fact"". The said report was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode,

wherein the de facto complainant, viz., T.T. Paranthaman had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1024 of 2010 and he had stated in his

petition that he is the Managing Partner of ""Paranthaman Exporters"" and his father, his wife are partners in the said Export firm. At this juncture, the

accused viz., S. Periyasamy had approached the de facto complainant''s Export firm to start a business at Gulf of Oman. As per the offer of the

accused, the de facto complainant had condescended to start such a business, accordingly, the business was started in the name and style of

Paranthaman Overseas Drillers Pvt. Ltd. India"". In the said firm, 50% of the share was allotted to the de facto complainant and the other 50% of

the share was allotted to the revision petitioner herein/accused viz., Periyasamy and three others. Further, the firm had decided to start a Drilling

contract works at the Gulf of Oman and the same got started in the year 2004 in which, the de facto complainant/ Mr. Paranthaman and his father

had invested a sum of Rs. 1 Crore and started the operations in the name and style of ""Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C. Oman"". In

the said company, 70% of the share was allotted to the Paranthaman firm and 30% of the share had been allotted to the revision petitioner

herein/accused, as per the Gulf of Oman Trading Rules and Regulations and in this way, the business progressed with the revision petitioner in

overall charge. In the said Company, two persons were appointed as senior Manager, viz., Mr. V. Rajendran and Mr. V. Vinayagam. In the

process of business transactions, the revision petitioner herein had purchased materials for a sum of Rs. 5 Crores and 86 Lakhs and operated the

business, however, the said expenditure as mentioned above, was not paid to the de facto complainant, in this manner, the de facto complainant

had been cheated by the revision petitioner - Mr. Periyasamy. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has started a new organization viz., ""Power Tech

Engineering Services Company, L.L.C"" on 30.7.2006. The revision petitioner had created a document and impersonated by signing for the de

facto complainant''s father viz., Mr. Thangaraj and obtained attestation from the Officers at Muscat on 3.11.2008. Further, on 19.2.2007, ""Power

Engineering Services Company, L.L.C."" firm had agreed to sell off all materials to ""Power Tech Engineering Services Company, L.L.C"" and

accordingly, passed a resolution, in this manner, the revision petitioner/accused had created a forged document with the intent to cheat a sum of

Rs. 5,86,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores and Eighty Six Lakhs only) and invested an amount a sum of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores

and Twenty Five Lakhs only). Further, the revision petitioner had created forged documents in the name of the de facto complainant''s father-

Thangaraj on 30.7.2006, 19.2.2007, 10.8.2007 and 4.9.2007 respectively. On the strength of such created forged documents, he transferred the

firm of ""Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C.,"" to the firm of ""Power Tech Engineering Services Company L.L.C.

This type of forgery had not been determined by the Investigation Officers besides not verifying the said forged documents. Actually, the revision

petitioner had changed the nomenclature i.e., from ""Power Engineering Services, Company L.L.C.,"" to ""Power Tech Engineering Services

Company, L.L.C.,"" and transferred the share capital to his name and had purchased from this capital amount valued properties in Tamil Nadu, in

his name and also in his wife''s name. So, this is the true factual position of the case, due to not being properly investigated and determined.

Therefore, the de facto complainant has filed a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 1024 of 2010 for re-enquiry and ascertaining the veracity of the case.

The said petition had been resisted by the respondent/Inspector of Police, attached to the District Crime Branch, CID, Namakkal. The

respondent Police stated that on the basis of complaint, the investigation officer had verified all the documents and had come to the conclusion that

as per the consent of Mr. Thangaraj, who had signed in all the documents, the firm namely, ""Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C."" had

been transferred to ""Power Tech Engineering Services Company, L.L.C."" Therefore, the allegation made by the de facto complainant that the

forged documents had been created and impersonated the signature of the de facto complainant''s father-Thangaraj, hence, if is not bona fide,

therefore on the basis of false information made by the de facto complainant, a re-enquiry is not at all required.

On the said averments of both parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode had framed an issue, i.e.,

Whether the Crime No. 1 of 2008 on the file of CBCID, Namakkal could be sent for re-enquiry or not?

In this case, the investigation officer had conducted an enquiry after verifying the records of Paranthaman Overseas Drillers Private Limited"" and

also collected statement from the witnesses u/s 161(3) of Cr. P.C. As per the complaint, the verification of signatures had not been adhered to in a

through manner. The learned Judicial Magistrate had further observed that on the basis of the statement collected from the witnesses u/s 161(3) of

Cr. P.C., the Investigation Officer had closed the complaint as a ""Mistake of Fact"". This enquiry is short of efficiency. The learned Judicial

Magistrate further observed that the Investigation Officer had not received some documents and minutes book in order to find out the transfer of

the firm and a verification of the signatures of the de facto complainant''s father, besides the disputed signature should be sent to the Forensic

Department for expert opinion, this was not adhered to, hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered for re-enquiry in order to determine the

signatures of the father of the de facto complainant in connection with the relevant documents via the competent examination by the Forensic

Department. The learned Judicial Magistrate further directed to conduct an enquiry with the witnesses by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

C.B.C.I.D. within a period of two months. Accordingly, it was ordered.

Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the above revision.

The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the nature of case is of a civil nature, therefore, the first respondent has closed

the case as a ""Mistake of Fact"" and filed a final report. This has to be accepted by the learned Magistrate. The learned senior counsel submitted

that ""Power Engineering Service Company, LLC"" was carrying out business at the Gulf of Oman, therefore, the entire jurisdiction arises at the Gulf

of Oman and not in India, but the learned Magistrate had erred that the original jurisdiction had occurred within the jurisdiction of the 1st

respondent Police. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have accepted the final report and rejected the protest petition. The de facto

complainant''s father-Thangaraj had admitted his signature in his statement, which was recorded by the Investigation Officer u/s 161(3) of Cr. P.C.

Knowing the fact, the de facto complainant in raising objection over his father''s signature as an after thought. The learned counsel further stated

that the entire business transaction on the basis of written agreement, so if any breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the aggrieved

party is at liberty to approach the Civil forum, which is the sole authority to decide the civil dispute including any pecuniary loss caused to the

respondent. The learned Magistrate failed to consider that the de facto complainant deliberately excluded the Managing Director of ""Power

Engineering Services, Company L.L.C.,"" Gulf of Oman, T.P. Thangaraj, who is none other than his father who was representing 70% share in the

Company and even assuming that any forgery was committed at the Gulf of Oman, the de facto complainant''s father is the competent person to file

a complaint against the Directors of ""Power Engineering Services, L.L.C.,"" including the revision petitioner to the Gulf of Oman Judiciary. The

learned Magistrate had wrongly concluded that the Managing Directors, who placed the order for rig material from his family Company viz., ""M/s.

Parantham Exporters"" and the said materials were defective and of low quality, hence, ""Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C."" was unable

to run properly. The learned senior counsel further contended that due to the heavy loss to the Company, the de facto complainant''s father-T.P.

Thangaraj had instructed the petitioner and other directors to attend the Directors meeting and subsequently, the Board of Directors approved the

winding up of the Company and informed the same to the Ministry of Commerce, Gulf of Oman. The learned senior counsel further argued that the

entire business transaction had occurred at the Gulf of Oman. Subsequent winding up of the company was done as per the Rules and Regulations

of the Gulf of Oman, with the consent of approval of Board of Directors of ""Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C.,"" including the de facto

complainant''s father-T.P. Thangaraj.

Learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner has furnished the list of date and events which are as follows:

Dale List of Dates and Events

1980 Paranthaman Exporters Partnership Firm started by the de facto Complainant''s

father

24.9.2003 Considering the vast work experience of this petitioner in the Sultanate of Oman in

the Field of Electrical Engineering the de facto Complainant''s father wanted this

petitioner to do business with him and therefore Paranthaman Overseas Drillers

Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated in India before the Registrar of Companies,

Coimbatore. (With 50% share by the de facto complainant and his father - equally

and Another fifty percent by this petitioner and other accused in the present

complaint)

15.9.2004 Power Engineering Services, L.L.C. Was incorporated in Sultanate of Oman (70%

of the share is held by Paranthaman Overseas Drillers Pvt. Ltd., and 30% of the

share by the Local Omanis)

Capital of the Company is Rs. 1.8 Crores. De facto complainant''s father is the

Managing Director of Power Engineering Services, L.L.C. and the petitioner

worked as the General manager as he is having vast experience in the work in

Oman.

Power Engineering Services L.L.C. Placed orders for supply of equipments with

Paranthaman Exporters.

Paranthaman Exporters supplied equipments worth Rs. 5.86 Crores to Power

Engineering Services L.L.C. and payment not made to the same. (Complainant''s

allegation)

The complainant for the above project has availed credit facilities from Punjab

National Bank, Erode to the tune of Rs. 5.86 Crores (complainant''s allegation).

The Power Engineering Services suffered huge loss due to the non-supply of

materials in time and inferior quality materials and non availability of spare parts.

30.7.2006 Partners of Power Engineering Services conducted a meeting and consented for

doing work separately.

15.11.2006Power Tech Engineering Services L.L.C. was registered with Ministry of

Commerce and Industry. The petitioner also started working and assigned the

position of Director.

19.2.2007 Partners of Power Engineering Services L.L.C. decided to sell the company (De

facto complainant''s father signed in the Minutes)

10.8.2007 Partners of Power Engineering Services L.L.C. decided to sell their company to

Power Tech Engineering. (Minutes signed by the de facto complainant''s father)

4.9.2007 Power Engineering Services L.L.C. was sold to Power Tech Engineering L.L.C.

6.10.2008 Complaint registered as F.I.R. No. 1 of 2008

30.12.2009After completion of investigation the FIR was closed as mistake of fact as the

dispute is of civil nature. RCS served on the de facto complainant and the Court of

the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.

9.2.2010 Protest petition was filed by the de facto complainant u/s 173(8) of Cr. P.C.

20.4.2010 The Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode has ordered for re-investigation

on the petition filed by the de facto complainant and directed Deputy

Superintendent of Police C.B.C.I.D, Salem to re-investigate and submit the report

within two months. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision has been filed.

Complaint in FIR Final Report filed by the Investigation Officer

Complainant Name: 6.10.2008 - received the complaint of Thiru.

T.T. Paranthaman,

T.T. Paranthaman, son of T.P. Thangaraj

Paranthaman Rock Drills-Partnership Firm -

Occupation: Business Address comprising of the partners of T.T. Paranthaman,

his father and wife.

Director Power Engineering Services L.L.C.

Oman. Paranthaman Overseas Drillers Ltd.,

50% by T.P. Thangaraj and T.T. Paranthaman,

50% by this petitioner and other persons who are

accused in the F.I.R.

Date of complaint 6.10.2008 given to D.G.P.During Investigation 7 witnesses and three

forwarded to Addl. DGP C.B.C.I.D., documents were examined.

Chennai through the S.P. of Police Crime

Branch C.I.D., North Zone, Chennai. Connected documents obtained and verified.

Complainant Documents

Invoices, consignment orders statements.

Accused Documents

Minutes, Periodically passed by Board of

Directors of Power Engineering Services attested

by Ministry of Foreign affairs Sultanate of Oman

as well as by the Indian Embassy at Muscat.

Allegation in the FIR: Conclusive of the Investigation Officer

Paranthaman & T.P. Thangaraj are Director De facto Complainant did not hold any position

and holding 70% of stakes in the Company in Power Engineering Services, L.L.C., Oman

by name Power Engineering Services, L.L.C.(Therefore his claim in FIR that he is the Director

of Power Engineering Services, L.L.C., Oman is

In Power Engineering Company, L.L.C., false.)

70% of the shares held by Paranthaman

Overseas Drillers 30% of the shares held by The signature of T.P. Thangaraj available in all

Mr. Suiman Musallam Omanian, the Minutes of Power Engineering, this was also

admitted by him as his signature (Therefore, there

Orders placed by Power Engineering is no question of forgery)

Services L.L.C. to Paranthaman Exporters to

the tune of Rs. 5,86,00,000/- and goods Mr. T.P. Thangaraj knows entire transaction.

supplied. Supply of goods between 2004-2006 prior to

Power Tech Engineering Services, L.L.C.

After receiving goods amount not paid by started.

Power Engineering Services L.L.C., to

Paranthaman Exporters to the tune of Rs. 30.7.2006-Minute passed by the Board of

5,86,00,000/-. Directors of Power Engineering Services, L.L.C.,

by which the Employees and Directors were

Availed credit facility to the tune of six crorespermitted to join in any other Company or to Act

from Punjab National Bank to finance the with similar work.

Project.

15.11.2006-Power Tech Engineering Services,

L.L.C. was started.

Periyasamy and three others formed another 19.2.2007-Board of Directors of Power

Company by name Power Tech Engineering Engineering Services L.L.C. consented to sell the

Services, L.L.C. Company. Passport of T.P. Thangaraj verified,

the entries made in the passport authenticated the

Diverted orders of Power Engineering visit to Oman on 30.7.2006 and 19.2.2007.

Services L.L.C., to Power Tech Engineering

Services L.L.C., Utilized funds and Man

Power of Power Engineering Services

Complaint in FIR Final Report filed by the Investigation Officer

Paranthaman Exporters is entitled to get Rs. Punjab National Bank, Erode to finance the

5.86 Crores from Power Engineering project was ascertained to be incorrect and false.

Services, L.L.C. Paranthaman Exporters had

to pay Rs. 7.22 Crores (Principle of Rs. 5.86Indian Embassy certified the documents.

Crores with penal interest) to the Punjab 19.2.2007-gave their consent to sell the Power

National Bank as they have obtained the saidEngineering, L.L.C.

project cost.

Father of the complainant who is the Managing

Offences u/s 120B, 420, 406, 409, 468, 471Director of Power Engineering Services, L.L.C.,

and 506 (ii) registered. has not preferred any complaint making any

allegation. Therefore, the case registered is

referred as a mistake of fact as the issue involved

is civil in nature.

The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner cited the following citations in support of the revision case:

(a) Abhinandan Jha and Others Vs. Dinesh Mishra,

There is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet, when they

have not sent a report u/s 169 of the Code, that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. The functions of the Magistracy and

the police are entirely different, and through, the Magistrate may or may not accept the report, and take suitable action, according to law, he

cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police, by compelling them to change their opinion, so as to accord with his view AIR 1945 18 (Privy

Council) Foll; (Chigurupati) Venkata Subba Rao and Another Vs. Naraharisetty Anjanayulu, and AIR 1953 Assam 112 and AIR 1960 MP 12,

Approved.

The investigation under the Code, takes in several aspects, and stages, ending ultimately with the formation of an opinion by the police as to

whether, on the material covered and collected, a case is made out to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial, and the submission of

either a charge-sheet, or a final report is dependant on the nature of the opinion, so formed. The formation of the said opinion, by the police, is the

final step in the investigation, and that the final step is to be taken only by the police and by no other authority.

(b) Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal,

In Abhirandan Jha v. Dines Mishra, this Court has pointed out the difference between the report by the Police filed u/s 170 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure which is referred to as a charge sheet and a report sent u/s 169 which is termed variously in different States as either ''referred

charge'', ''final report'' or ''summary''''. This Court observed that when the police submitted a report that no case has been made out for sending up

accused for trial it is not open to the Magistrate to direct the police officer to file a charge sheet. In such circumstances, the Magistrate is not

powerless as it is open to him to take cognizance of an offence on the report submitted by the Police u/s 190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Dealing with the position of the Magistrate when a report is submitted by the Police that no case is made out for sending a case for trial

the Court observed that it is open to the Magistrate to agree with the report and close the proceedings. Equally it will be open to the Magistrate if

he takes a different view to give directions to the police u/s 163(1) to make further investigations. After receiving a report from the police on further

investigation if the Magistrate forms an opinion on the fact that it constitutes an offence he may take cognizance of an offence u/s 190(1)(c)

notwithstanding the opinion of the police expressed in final report. This Court held in conclusion that there is no power expressly or impliedly

conferred on the Magistrate under the Code to call upon the Police to submit a charge-sheet when they have sent a report u/s 169 of the Code

that there is no case made out for sending the case for trial. The same view is expressed in the decision in Kamala Prasad Singh v. Hari Nath

Singh. In R.N. Chatterji v. Havildar Kuer Sing, A.N. RAY, J, as he then was, followed the decision in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (supra)

and held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not empower the Magistrate to direct the police officer to submit a charge-sheet

but if he is of the opinion that the report submitted by the police requires further investigation, the Magistrate may order investigation, u/s 163 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that directing further enquiry is entirely different from asking police to submit a charge-sheet. The only

course open for the Magistrate if he is not satisfied with the police report u/s 169 is to take cognizance of an offence u/s 190(1)(c) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. It may be noted that in M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, it was held that if the Magistrate disagrees with the opinion of the Police he

may proceed to take cognizance on the facts stated in the police report u/s 190(1)(b).

(c) Sarala v. T.S. Veln AIR 2000 SC 1731 : 2000) SCC (Cr) 823 : LNIND 2000 SC 657 : (2000) 1 MLJ (Crl) 544

Following the above, a two-Judge Bench of this Court has stated in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra as follows:

We have already pointed out that the investigation, under the Code, takes in several aspects, and staged ending ultimately with the formation of an

opinion by the police as to whether, on the material covered and collected a case is made out to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial,

and the submission of either a charge-sheet, or a final report is dependant on the nature of the opinion, so formed. The formation of the said

opinion, by the police, as pointed out earlier, is the final step in the investigation, and that final step is to be taken only by the police and by no other

enquiry.

(d) Minu Kumari and Another Vs. The State of Bihar and Others,

In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, this Court while considering the provisions of Sections 156(3), 169, 178 and 190 of the Code held that

there is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet, when they

have sent a report u/s 69 of the Code that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. The functions of the Magistrate and the

police are entirely different, and the Magistrate cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the Police, by compelling them to change their opinion so as

to accord with his view. However, he is not deprived of the power to proceed with the matter. There is no obligation on the Magistrate to accept

the report if he does not agree with the opinion formed by the Police. The Power to take cognizance notwithstanding formation of the opinion by

the police which is the final stage in the investigation has been provided for in Section 190(1)(c).

(e) Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI (2001) SCC (Cri) 1280 : LNIND 2001 SC 1733 : (2002) 1 MLJ (Crl)85

When the Special Judge has opted to order for a further reinvestigation the High Court should have stated to CBI to comply with that

direction. Nonetheless, we are in agreement with the observation of the learned single Judge of the High Court that the special Judge or the

Magistrate could not direct that a particular police officer or even an officer of a particular rank should conduct such further investigation. It is not

within the province of the Magistrate while exercising the power u/s 173(3) to specify any particular officer to conduct such investigation, not even

to suggest the rank of the officer who should conduct such investigation.

(f) Shariff Ahmed and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4543 of 2008, decided on

24.4.2009.

Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved by the executive through the police department, the superintendent over which vests in

the State Government. It is the bounden duty of the executive to investigate, if an offence is alleged, and bring the offender to book. Once it

investigates and finds an offence having been committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is

completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence u/s 190 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court, the police function of investigation comes

to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 373(8), then commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an

offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime. In the circumstances, the judgment and order of

the High Court was set-aside by this Court. In the instant case the investigation is in progress. It is not necessary for us to comment on the tentative

view of the investigating agency. It is the statutory duty of the investigating agency to fully investigate the matter and then submit a report to the

concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate will thereafter proceed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It was not appropriate for the

High Court in these circumstances to issue a direction that the case should not only be investigated but a charge sheet must be submitted. In our

view, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making this direction which deserves to be set-aside. While it is open to the High Court, in

appropriate cases, to give directions for prompt investigation etc., the High Court cannot direct the investigating agency to submit a report that is in

accord with its views as that would amount to unwarranted interference with the investigation of the case by inhibiting the exercise of statutory

power by the investigating agency.

(g) K. Chandra Sekar v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 233

From Section 173 Cr. P.C. it is evident that even after submission of Police report under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police

has a right of ""further"" investigation under sub-section (8) but not ""fresh investigation"" or ""reinvestigation"". The dictionary meaning of ""further"" (when

used as an adjective) is ""additional; more; supplemental"". ""Further'' investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a

fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. This conclusion is supported also by the

fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a

further"" report or reports - and not fresh report or reports - regarding the ""further"" evidence obtained during such investigation. Once it is

accepted that an investigation undertaken by CBI pursuant to a consent granted u/s 6 of the Act is to be completed, notwithstanding withdrawal of

the consent, and that ""further investigation"" is a continuation of such investigation which culminates in a further police report u/s 173(8), it

necessarily means that withdrawal of consent in the instant case would not entitle the State Police, to further investigate into the case. To put it

differently, if any further investigation is to be made it is the CBI alone which can do so, for it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State

Government. Resultantly, notification issued withdrawing the consent to enable the State Police to further investigate into the case is patently invalid

and unsustainable in law.

(h) Ramchandran v. R. Udhaya Kumar (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 631 : LNIND 2008 SC 1169

In view of the position of law as indicated above, the directions of the High Court for reinvestigation or fresh investigation are clearly

indefensible. We, therefore, direct that instead of fresh investigation there can be further investigation if required u/s 173(8) of the Code. The same

can be done by CB CID as directed by this Court.

(i) Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar,

The above said provision also makes it clear that further investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is prohibited. The law does not

mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out a further investigation even after filling of the charge-

sheet is a statutory right of the Police. Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further investigation is permissible.

From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of police report under sub-

section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to further investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but no fresh

investigation or reinvestigation. The meaning of Further is additional: more; or supplemental. Further investigation, therefore, is the continuation of

the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Sub-

Section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation, the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a

further report and not fresh report regarding the further evidence obtained during such investigation.

(j) Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna and Another,

It, is however, beyond any cavil that ''further investigation'' and ''reinvestigation.'' stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation a

superior Court in exercise of its constitutional power, namely, under Article 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct a ""State"" to get an

offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior

Court would ordinarily issue such a direction. PASAYAT, J, in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar, opined as under:

At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above Section it is evident that even

after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8),

but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation.

(k) Reeta Nag v. State of W.B. (2009) 3 SCC (Cr) 1051 : LNIND 2009 SC 1683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 173(2) and (8), 167(2) and 319 reinvestigation or further investigation u/s 173(8) at behest of de

facto complainant - Permissibility of, after filling of charge-sheet u/s 173(2), and framing of charges against some accused, other accused having

been discharged -Proper course to be followed by Magistrate-Held, having passed a final order framing charges against six accused and

discharging remains ten accused, it was no longer within Magistrate''s jurisdiction to direct investigation into the case - Besides, investigating

authorities had not applied for further investigation - not only was Magistrate wrong in directing investigation on application made by the de facto

complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining said application filed by the de facto complainant - since no application had been

made by the investigating authorities for conducting further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr. P.C., the other course of action open to Magistrate was to

take recourse to provisions of Section 319 at stage of trial if any material is disclosed during examination of the witnesses during the trial - Hence,

no reason to interfere with order of High Court quashing order of Magistrate.

(1) Reeta Nag v. State of W.B. (supra)

In the instant case, the investigating authorities did not apply for further investigation and it was only upon the application filed by the de facto

complainant u/s 173(8) was a direction given by the learned Magistrate to re investigate the matter. As we have already indicated above, such a

course of action was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Not only was the Magistrate wrong in directing a reinvestigation on

the application made by the de facto complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the said application filed by the de facto

complainant

The learned senior counsel after narrating the entire facts of the case by way of index and cited the case laws and entreats to set-aside the learned

Magistrate''s impugned order.

Learned counsel for the first respondent/State argued that the learned Magistrate has no power for ordering reinvestigation or further

investigations. The Investigation Officer had duly conducted an enquiry and also recorded the statements of concerned parties and had come to the

conclusion that there was no prima facie case against the accused, hence the compliant was closed as ""Mistake of Fact"". The final report has also

been filed before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had ordered a reinvestigation/further investigation in order to determine the

veracity pertaining to the signature of Thangaraj. Once the said Thangaraj had admitted his signature at an enquiry, therefore, expert opinion

ordered by the learned Magistrate is not warranted. The petition filed u/s 173(8) of Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. In support of this argument, the

learned counsel for the State had cited the following judgments:

(a) Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 4753 : (2005) SCC (Cr) 404 : LNIND 2004 SC 1005

In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Kishra this Court while considering the provisions of Sections 156(3), 169, 178 and 190 of the Code held that

there is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet, when they

have sent a report u/s 169 of the Code, that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. The functions of the magistracy and the

police are entirely different, and the Magistrate cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police, by compelling them to change their opinion so as

to accord with his view. However, he is not deprived of the power to proceed with the matter. There is no obligation on the Magistrate to accept

the report if he does not agree with the opinion formed by the Police. The power to take cognizance notwithstanding formation of opinion by the

police which is the final stage in the investigation has been provided for in Section 190(1)(c).

(b) Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (supra)

Among the other sub-sections, we are very much concerned about sub-section (8) of Section 173 which read as under:

173 (8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has

been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or

documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of

sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-

section (2).

A mere reading of the above provision makes it clear that irrespective of the report under sub-section (2) forwarded to the Magistrate, if the

officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, it is incumbent on his part to forward the same to the Magistrate with a further report

with regard to such evidence in the form prescribed. The abovesaid provision also makes it clear that further investigation is permissible, however,

reinvestigation is prohibited.

The law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out a further investigation even after

filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further

investigation is permissible.

(c) Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2009) 2 SCC (Cr) 1047 : LNIND 2009 SC 1172

This Court while passing the order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India did not direct reinvestigation. This

Court exercised its jurisdiction which was within the realm of the Code. Indisputably the investigating agency in terms of sub-section (8) of Section

173 of the Code can pray before the Court and may be granted permission to investigate into the matter further. There are, however, certain

situations, where such a formal request may not be insisted upon.

It is, however, beyond any cavil that ""further investigation"" and ""reinvestigation"" stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation

superior Court in exercise of its constitutional power, namely, under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct a ""State"" to get an

offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior

Court would ordinarily issue such a direction.

The learned counsel for the State further argued that the learned Magistrate had encroached on the first respondent''s jurisdiction, which is a blatant

error, hence, the learned counsel is entreating to cancel the impugned order of the learned Magistrate.

Learned senior counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant argued that initially the agreement was entered into within the

jurisdiction of the first respondent police. The criminal complaint leveled against the revision petitioner herein and few others viz., Mr. V.

Vinayagam, Mr. V. Rajendran and Mr. V. Suresh and Others before the Director General of Police, Chennai stating that the business of bore-well

drilling started in and around 1980 in the name and style of Paranthaman Rock Drills, which is a partnership firm and thereafter forayed into other

areas of business. This firm also manufacture erect and commission drilling rigs etc., also carrying out various contracts for clients in India and

abroad. The business was booming and the firm was contemplating expansion abroad by the father of the second respondent, viz., Mr. Thangaraj,

who was approached by the revision petitioner, who claimed that he possessed 15 years experience at the Gulf of Oman, in the field of

maintenance and erection of electrical equipments for the oil and gas fields and similar areas of expertise, initially claiming that the revision petitioner

wanted to purchase a drilling right and later as an acquaintance developed and came up with a business voucher, ideas and proposals. Therefore,

the firm took him on as a General Manager and since the foraying into foreign countries require local expertise and also in compliance with the laws

of the said country, so the second respondent''s firm had to join hands with the local partners. Since the Sultanate of Oman possessed a colossal

protection in terms of sub contracts and contracts for oil rigs and refineries, the country being a major O.P.E.C. (Oil and Petroleum Exporting

Company). Hence, they contemplated starting business at the Sultanate of Oman as per the local laws of Oman, the Company was formulated

called ""Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C.,"" with address as Post Box No. 487, Pin Code No. 112, Ruwi, Sultanate of Oman. In the

said company, 70% of the shares are owned by Paranthaman Overseas Drillers Private Ltd., a sister concern of second respondent Company

group in which the second respondent and his father Mr. T.P. Thangaraj are the Directors holding 70% of the shares, the balance shares of 30% is

owned by the local J.V. Partner (Join Venture Partner) at Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, Mr. Sulaiman Musallam Said A1 Tamimi and this was

formed some time on 15.9.2004. The capital of the Company was R.O. 1,50,000/- at about Rs. 1,80,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Eighty

Lakhs only) as such, the company got established. Therefore, the original cause of action under the jurisdiction of the first respondent/Inspector of

Police.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that ""Paranthaman Overseas Drillers Private Limited"" was incorporated before the Registrar of

companies, Coimbatore, in which, the second respondent, his father, the revision petitioner herein, Mr. V. Vinayagam, Mr. V. Rajendran and Mr.

V. Suresh are share holders as well as Directors. Therefore, the original jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction are covered under the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode as well as the first respondent Police.

The learned senior counsel further argued that the firm had availed credit facilities from Punjab National Bank, Erode to the tune of Rs.

6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores only). Therefore, the second respondent herein can very well approach the first respondent Police to look into

the complaint. The respondent Police had also registered a Criminal Case in Crime No. 1 of 2008 on 6.10.2008 for the offence under Sections

120(B), 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 506(1) IPC. Aggrieved by the said Criminal Complaint, the revision petitioner had moved an anticipatory

bail before this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 17228 of 2010. This Court was pleased to grant bail to the revision petitioner, when the revision petitioner

had not raised any objections regarding jurisdiction in his bail petition. The learned senior counsel further submitted that originally the case was

registered in Crime No. 1 of 2008 on the file of Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, subsequently, the case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D.,

Coimbatore, after the order of this Court, dated 20.6.2010 in Crl.O.P. No. 10190 of 2010. At the time of transferring this case, the revision

petitioner had not raised the point regarding the original jurisdiction. On the same cause of action, the second respondent had filed a Writ Petition

in W.P. No. 24639 of 2010 against the revision petitioner and two others, the same was entertained by this Court and disposed the writ petition,

as such, the original jurisdiction arises in India i.e., under the first respondent''s commanding area.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that the second respondent had posted two letters on 16.2.2007 addressed to the revision

petitioner and demanded the outstanding dues. The revision petitioner after receipt of the said letters had sent a reply to his two letters, dated

18.2.2007 stating that after the completion of the project, he will get R.O. 50,000/-and R.O. 1,70,000/-. After receipt of the said amount, the

revision petitioner had not settled the dues to the second respondent, as such, the revision petitioner had committed forgery, misappropriation of

funds and cheating with conspiracy, therefore, the revision petitioner had committed offence u/s 420, 120(B). The learned senior counsel further

submitted that there is a prima facie case, therefore, the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Namakkal, registered a case against the revision

petitioner, but the first respondent had not properly conducted an enquiry and also had not verified the entire records. Without a proper enquiry,

the respondent Police had come to the conclusion that the case was closed as a ""Mistake of Fact"" and final report filed before the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Tiruchengode. In the said final report, there is a lacuna that arises, hence, the learned Magistrate had ordered for the further

investigation of the case. Further, the learned Magistrate directed the first respondent to verify the entire records and also conduct further enquiry

with the relevant witnesses and also directed the respondent to send relevant documents to the Forensic Department to determine the veracity of

the signature pertaining to the father of the second respondent herein. On the basis of the learned Judicial Magistrate order, if the first respondent

conduct further enquiry, the revision petitioner will not be prejudiced and the character of the complaint will not be altered. At the same time, if the

further enquiry is not conducted, the second respondent will be prejudiced and placed in hardship with irreparable loss. The learned senior counsel

further argued that there is & prima facie, case made out, hence the first respondent had proceeded on the case after registering the F.I.R. The

learned Judicial Magistrate order is a valid one, after applying his judicial mind, the order was passed. The judicial Court is to apply a judicial mind

and thereafter pass orders, the Court should not pass an order as per first respondent''s expectation and in a mechanical fashion by way of mere

endorsement.

Learned senior counsel further argued that there is no difference of opinion in the money configuration, but the revision petitioner had brazenly

cheated the second respondent by way of creating false documents in the name of second respondent''s father and impersonation.

The learned senior counsel had submitted the following citations in support of his case:

(a) Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (supra)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898-Section 173(3)-Courses open before Magistrate under - Except where Magistrate orders further investigation

having not agreed with the police, he generally acts in the capacity of a Court.

(b) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another,

In a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded u/s 173(2)(i) decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the

proceedings or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information

Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.

Unnecessary delay on account of the difficulty or effecting service of the notice on the informant cannot be a valid objection against this view

because in any case the action taken by the police on the First Information Report has to be communicated to the informant and a copy of the

report has to be supplied to him u/s 173(2)(i). Moreover, the difficulty of service of notice of the informant cannot provide any justification for

depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate.

(c) Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah 1997 SCC (Cri) 1112

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 173(8)-Power of Magistrate to direct further investigation after acceptance of final report and

closure of the case-Shortcomings necessitating reinvestigation brought to the notice of the Magistrate by the informant but he refused to direct

reinvestigation holding that he had no power to review the earlier order - Held, the Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law -

He was not required to review the order but to order further investigation into the case which he was competent to do u/s 173(8).

(d) Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others,

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 173(8)-Power of Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation-Court not obliged to hear

the accused before making such direction

(e) State of Orissa v. Mahima (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 611 : 2007) 15 SCC 580

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 173(8)-Further investigation-Long after submission of final form-Held, valid-Order for further

investigation cannot be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional power on ground that examining the witnesses who were

examined at the time of the earlier investigation, recording their statements 5 1/2 years after submission of the final form and further investigation on

the basis of such statement would amount to abuse of process of Court -Power under sub-section (8) is of widest amplitude and is not of such

restrictive nature.

(f) Prabir Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Others,

In the instant case, the learned Magistrate assigned reasons as to why he was directing ''reinvestigation'' of the case. It has been submitted by the

learned State Advocate that although the word ''reinvestigation'' has been used which has been used in the decision of the Supreme Court in

Popular Muthiah (supra), to all intents and purposes it is actually a direction for ''further investigation'' and I do not think that the order of the

learned Magistrate is bade in law. The revisional application dwelt with some facts of the case which are not necessary to traverse here because

the facts of the prosecution case can be traversed only.

(g) Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (supra)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 173(8) and (2) and 319 - ""Further investigation""-scope of- ""Further investigation"" distinguished from

fresh investigation"" or ""reinvestigation"" Summoning of witnesses named in supplementary charge-sheet- Permissibility-Held, even after submission

of the police report u/s 173(2) on completion of the investigation, the police has a right to ""further"" investigation u/s 173(8) but not ""fresh

investigation"" or ""reinvestigation""-Meaning of ""further"" is additional, more, or supplemental - It is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not

a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started into wiping out the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or investigation to be started

ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether - Further, held Section 178(8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation,

the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a ""further"" report regarding the ""further"" evidence obtained during such investigation -

Hence, order of the trial Court summoning the witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet cannot be faulted with - Further, law does not

mandate taking prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation and carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge-

sheet which is a statutory right of the police - Furthermore, material collected in further investigation cannot be rejected only because it has been

filed at the stage of the trial-Hence, impugned judgment rejecting revision application filed against the order of trial Court summoning the witnesses

based on supplementary charge-sheet calls for no interference.

(h) Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna (supra)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(8) and 482 -Further investigation - Nature and scope - Instances when Section 173(8) may be

invoked-Interference by Courts -- When permissible - Held, Section 173(8) can be invoked (1) when new facts come to light or (2) when

superior Courts find that the investigation is tainted and/or unfair or (3) when superior Courts find that it is required in the ends of justice - Practice

and Procedure - Equity - Ends of justice -Further investigation

C. Code of Criminal Procedure-1973- Sections 173(2), (8) and 200-Complainant''s right and options against accused in criminal trial, stated viz.,

(1) the right to be given notice on filling of police report, (2) the right to file a protest petition, which may be treated as a complaint by Magistrate,

and (3) the right to question the fairness of investigation and demand further investigation

(i) Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal (supra)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 173(2) & (8), 167(2) and 319-Reinvestigation or further investigation u/s 173(8) at behest of de

facto complainant - Permissibility of, after filing of charge sheet u/s 173(2), and framing of charges against some accused, other accused having

been discharged -Proper course to be followed by Magistrate -Held, having passed a final order framing charges against six accused and

discharging remaining ten accused, it was no longer within Magistrate''s jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation into the case - Besides, investigation

authorities had not applied for further investigation - Not only was Magistrate wrong in directing reinvestigation on application made by the de

facto complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining said application filed by de facto complainant - Since no application had

been made by investigating authorities for conducting further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr. P.C., the other course of action open to Magistrate was

to take records to provisions of Section 319 at stage of trial if any material is disclosed during examination of the witnesses during the trial - Hence,

no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court quashing order of Magistrate.

(j) Sivanmoorthy v. State (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 295 : 2010) 12 SCC 29 : LNIND 2009 SC 1981

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(8) and (2) Scope and applicability of Section 173(8) refers to the term ""further investigation"",

however, the term has not been defined in Cr. P.C.-It must therefore depend on the facts of each case as culled from record - Nevertheless,

reiterated, further investigation and not a reinvestigation can be made - Nature of investigation whether amounts to a further investigation or a

reinvestigation has to be seen from nature of investigation conducted - On facts, investigation conducted by P.W. 27 (SP, CB CID), on directions

of High Court, was in the nature of further investigation - Hence, conviction of appellant-accused, by looking into evidence collected by P.W. 27

based on such investigation, held, proper-Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 148 and 341.

(k) S. Kandasamy and Others v. K. Kalimuthu and State by the Inspector of Police, Namakkal, Crl. R.C. No. 1450 of 2007, dated 17.8.2011

On receipt of a final report, a Magistrate has three options:

(a) He may accept the report;

(b) He may reject the same, take cognizance/refuse to take cognizance for an offence mentioned/not mentioned in the final report; and

(c) He may, in a fit case, direct further investigation

Some of the judgments which recognize the right of the Magistrate to direct further investigation are:

(i) Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (supra)

(ii) Sri Bhagwan Samrdha Sreepada Vallabha Venkatavishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P. and Others (supra);

(iii) Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (supra); and

(iv) Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna and Another (supra)

It may not be out of place to inform that the decision in Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (supra) case is that of a three judge Bench of

the Hon''ble Apex Court.

The above list merely is illustrative. Against a catena of judgments which inform/suggest that further investigation may be directed by the

Magistrate acting suo motu, the judgment in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (supra), stands alone. In Union Public Service

Commission v. S. Papaiah (supra), the Hon''ble 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 Bhagwant Sing v. Commissioner of Police (supra). If the Magistrate upon issuing such mandatory notice and hearing the in-formant/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. It may also require mention that in the Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (supra) case it has been observed

that the Magistrate cannot suo motu direct further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr. P.C., or direct re-investigation in the case on account of the bar of

Section 167(2) of the Code. Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. relates to remand of the accused.

Thus, it would be appropriate to follow traditional wisdom and inform that power do lie with the Magistrate to order further investigation in an

appropriate case.

(1) Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 772 : (2011) 9 SCC 527 : LNIND 2011 SC 850 : 2012) 1 MU

(Crl)341

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 188 proviso and Section 157-Applicability of Section 188 proviso - Offences committed outside

India by Indian citizen -Requirement of previous sanction of Central Government for inquiring into or trying such offences in India - Situation where

accused committing some offences outside India and some within India, considered -Held, Section 188 proviso regarding sanction, is a fetter on

powers of investigating authority - However, such fetters are imposed only when stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction is

required till commencement of trial - Accordingly, up to stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from Central

Government in terms of Section 188 proviso - However, trial cannot proceed beyond cognizance stage without such previous sanction -

Therefore, Magistrate is free to proceed against accused in respect of offences committed in India and to complete trial and pass judgment therein,

without being inhibited by other offences committed outside India, for which sanction would be required before trial can commence.

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 4-Extension of Provisions of I.P.C. to extra-territorial offences committed by Indian Citizen - Limitation regarding -

Held, offences committed outside India by Indian Citizen would also be amendable to provisions of I.P.C., but it would be subject to limitation

imposed u/s 188 proviso Cr. P.C. -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 188 proviso,

Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner further argued that as per the statement of second respondent''s father-

Thangaraj, he has not denied the attestation of signature in the minute statement of meetings dated 30.7.2006 and 19.2.2007. Further, the said

Thangaraj had categorically admitted that he and his partners had signed in the two resolutions. Therefore, the expert opinion from the Forensic

Department is not necessary as observed by the learned Magistrate.

In reply, the learned senior counsel for the second respondent argued that the attestation of signatures was in a separate sheet, therefore, a

strong suspicion arises in this case in order to sort out this type of problem which shows inconsistency, therefore, the expert opinion from the

Forensic Department to determine the genuinely of Mr. Thangaraj''s signature is absolutely necessary, hence the observation of the learned

Magistrate in his order. Therefore, the impugned order is not warranted.

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the arguments of the learned senior counsels and also the learned counsel

for the state, the view of this Court:

(i) The accused had moved an anticipatory bail on 30.7.2010, the same was ordered. On that day, the respondent police had not given any

instructions stating that the criminal case was closed as a ""Mistake of Fact"" and the final report was filed on 20.4.2010, the learned Magistrate has

ordered an enquiry for further investigation.

(ii) The de facto complainant had filed a Crl. O.P. No. 10190 of 2010 for seeking direction for transferring the investigation of the case in Crime

No. 1 of 2008 from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., to any other C.B.C.I.D. office. The same was

ordered and the case was transferred to the file of C.B.C.I.D. of Coimbatore for proper investigation. The said order passed on 28.6.2010, which

is in force. The learned Magistrate''s order dated 20.4.2010 made in Crl. M.P. No. 1024 of 2010 wherein, the Inspector of Police attached to the

District Crime Branch, C.I.D., Namakkal was a party as respondent. Thereafter, this Court has transferred the case for investigation. So, this

Court''s order passed in Crl. O.P. No. 10190 of 2010, dated 28.6.2010 is in force and become final. Therefore, the revision petitioner is in the

clutches of the C.B.C.I.D., Coimbatore, as such, the revision is not maintainable.

(iii) The de facto complainant had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 24639 of 2010 directing the Regional Passport Officer, Shastri Bhavan and the

Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CID, Coimbatore, to impound the passport bearing old No. A4341923 and New No. Z1753515 of the

accused viz., S. Periyasamy. In this writ petition, this Court had granted interim direction to the said officers to prohibit the departure of the

accused from India. This interim order shows that the de facto complainant is having a prima facie case. Subsequently, this Court had disposed the

writ petition on condition that the accused has to file an affidavit of undertaking before the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Coimbatore

with regard to the date of his leaving India to the Gulf of Oman and with regard to his return from Gulf of Oman to India with two securities, who

own immovable properties worth of Rs. 1 crore or more in Coimbatore. This conditional judicial order passed only after the prima facie case was

made.

(iv) The revision petitioner''s firm viz., ""Power Engineering Services Company, L.L.C."" have written two letters to ""Paranthan Exporters"" on

18.2.2007. The first letter contains the following portion:

(1) We are in receipt of your letter dated 16.2.2007 and would like to inform you the reason for not making the payment in time. As already

known to you, we had completed the drilling job under the Mukhaizna project. However, due to the non-availability of the materials to be supplied

by the client which is a part of the contract to complete our job, we are unable to raise any invoice as per the milestone payment schedule. Once

we receive the entire materials and complete the project, we will be able to claim the money against the drilling activity. The expected value is Rs.

50,000/-.

Another letter of the contents are as follows:

Due to the non- availability of the materials from our clients, we are unable to complete the projects as per our construction schedule. Hence, one

of the major projects from M/s. AI Hassan Engineering is not fully completed. We could complete 75% of the project and the balance is expected

to be completed on receipt of the materials. Moreover, our client has held 20% of the payment as retention for the job already completed. We

expect the total value of realization during completion of the project to be Rs. 1,70,000/-.

Regarding the communications of the two letters of the revision petitioner, there is no answer in this charge sheet. Therefore, this remains the crucial

issue and in order to find out the issues further enquiry is necessary.

(v) As per the F.I.R., one of the allegations that the accused had created a false document and received the attestation from four persons from Gulf

of Oman (Muscat) for which, no statement has been collected from the attestors.

(vi) The second respondent, de facto complainant has filed the protest petition u/s 173(8) of Cr. P.C., which is not appropriate, since the facts of

the case is the main issue between the parties in order to sort out the disputes.

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned senior counsels on either side and on perusing the

connected records, citations and scrutinizing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, the Court''s view as mentioned from Clause 1 to 6, this

Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed in C.M.P. No. 1024 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode,

dated 20.4.2010, hence this Court is not warranted to interfere, therefore, the above revision is to be dismissed and accordingly adhered to.

Consequently, the impugned order is confirmed. Resultantly, the above Criminal Revision No. 1191 of 2010 is dismissed. As a consequence the

order passed in C.M.P. No. 1024 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, dated 20.4.2010 is confirmed. The connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.