The de facto complainant in C.C.No.1591 of 2002 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva is the revision petitioner. In this revision, he challenges the order dated 14.12.2009 in CMP No.3303 of 2009 in C.C.No.1591 of 2002 of the learned Magistrate by which the learned Magistrate declined the request of the revision petitioner for further investigation in Crime No.218 of 2001 of the Aluva Police Station.

2. I have heard Sri.Jagadeesachandran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also Sri.B.N.Shivashankar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/accused and also Sri.V.Tek Chand, learned Public Prosecutor. I have carefully considered the order impugned and the documents available on record.

3. The revision petitioner herein initially approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva by filing a private complaint on the allegation that the accused on 1.9.1999 with the intention to cheat Cws.1 to 4, accepted Rs.10 lakhs each from them, at the office of one of the Crl.R.PNO.3981 of 2009 :-2-:

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable either on law or on facts involved in the case. According to the learned counsel, if the trial is proceeded on the basis of the report preferred by the Police, there is every possibility for a clear acquittal of the accused, since the materials and evidences produced by the Police are not proper and the same was prepared in such a fashion to warrant an acquittal. According to the learned counsel, during the investigation, the Police has deliberately shifted the place of execution of the agreement in question and no witnesses were questioned and no statement was recorded. According to the learned counsel, considering the seriousness of the allegations and huge monetary involvement, the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed his petition for further investigation. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel very much placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2008(1) KLT 724 (SC)].

5. Whereas resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the Crl.R.PNO.3981 of 2009 :-5-:

6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna and another [(2009)7 SCC 685] and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Shaji Crl.R.PNO.3981 of 2009 :-6-:

7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the materials available on record including the impugned order.

8. On going through the records available, it appears to me that if the allegations are true, the offence committed by the accused is one by which the accused has got unlawful enrichment and the revision petitioner and other similarly situated persons have sustained wrongful loss through Crl.R.PNO.3981 of 2009 :-7-:

9. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused and in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the question to be considered is whether the learned Magistrate has got jurisdiction to order further investigation on the basis of a petition filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. by a private party/de facto complainant, after the framing of charge against the accused on the basis of the report filed by the Police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Justifying the order of the learned Magistrate, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the light of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Reeta Nag 's case (2009 (9) SCC 129), the learned Magistrate is perfectly correct in declining the request for further investigation at the instance of the de facto complainant. As I indicated earlier, in order to substantiate the contention of the learned counsel, he placed much reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Reeta Nag 's case (cited supra). Learned counsel invited my attention to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said decision , from which it can be Crl.R.PNO.3981 of 2009 :-9-:

As correctly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the above dictum is laid down in answer to the question formulated by their Lordships as evidenced from the paragraph 1 of the said decision which reads as follows:-

In the light of the above decision , what emerged is that in that case , after framing of a charge against six accused and discharge of 10 accused at the Crl.R.PNO.3981 of 2009 :-11-:

10. In the decision reported in Kishan Lal 's case [2009(7) SCC 685] cited by the learned Public Prosecutor in paragraph 15, the Apex Court has held that an order of further investigation can be made at various Crl.R.PNO.3981 of 2009 :-12-:

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)."

The court has not imposed any condition for ordering further investigation. If the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that, only the investigating agency can approach the court concerned for further investigation, is accepted, the real aggrieved person may be left with no remedy. By making the provision under Section 173(8) , the intention of the legislature is to collect proper and sufficient evidence or materials and to bring the real culprits before the court of law and thereby, render justice to the society as such. If that be so, there is no meaning in denying such justice to a de facto complainant in a prosecution, especially when the Crl.R.PNO.3981 of 2009 :-13-: