J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned applications are interrelated and the challenge is also to a selfsame order of further investigation passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Criminal Application No. 288 of 2016 is treated as the lead matter.

3. By this application, the applicant seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat on Exh.18 application for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2005.

4. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under;

"4.1 The respondent No. 2, namely, Manubhai Kalyanjibhai Nayak lodged a complaint for the offence punishable under sections 408. 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 read with section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against one Ashok Rameshchandra Shah and others in respect to the land situated at Vesu, bearing Old Revenue Survey No. 596 and New Revenue Survey No. 393 paiki 2, admeasuring 13700 sq. mtrs.

4.2 The court concerned passed an order of police investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The order of police investigation led to the registration of the M. Case No. 3 of 2004 at the DCB Police Station, Surat. At the end of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the same culminated in the Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2005. The prosecution is based on the charge of using a forged power of attorney for the purpose of executing the sale-deed.

4.3 It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No. 2 herein, being dissatisfied with the manner in which the investigation was carried out, came before this Court by filing the Special Criminal Application No. 702 of 2007. The said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 18th April, 2007 in the following terms;

"Heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the petitioner. Remedy is available to the petitioner to move before the criminal court before which M Case No. 3/04 is pending by submitting an application under section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Court will decide the same in accordance with law.

In view of the above learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to approach the trial Court for appropriate remedy with liberty to apply in case of difficulty. Permission is granted. Petition stands disposed of."

4.4 Pursuant to the order passed by this Court referred to above, the respondent No. 2 preferred an application, Exh.12 under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C and prayed for further investigation before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in connection with the Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2005.

4.5 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, vide order dated 12th October, 2007, allowed the application Exh.12 and ordered further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.

4.6 One of the accused persons, namely, Ashok Rameshchandra Shah, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order of further investigation, challenged the same before the Sessions Court at Surat by filing the Criminal Revision Application No. 370 of 2007. The revision application came to be allowed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 7th May, 2010. In such circumstances, the order of further investigation was quashed.

4.7 The respondent No. 2 herein, being dissatisfied with such order passed by the Revisional Court, came before this Court by filing the Criminal Revision Application No. 406 of 2010.

4.8 This Court, vide judgment and order dated 30th September, 2010, allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Revisional Court at Surat. I may quote the relevant observations made by this Court;

"2. On