JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

As both these, Revision Application as well as the Special Criminal Application arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court – learned Sessions Court, Surat, both these applications are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

1.1. Rule. So far as Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 is concerned, Shri R.J. Goswami, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 herein and Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 State as well as the Investigating Officer. Similarly, so far as RULE in Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 is concerned, Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State of Gujarat. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Revision Application as well as Special Criminal Application are taken up for final hearing and heard finally.

2. Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 has been preferred by the applicant herein – original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Court – learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 2011 by which the learned Revisional Court has allowed the said Revision Application preferred by the respondent No.2 herein – original accused and has quashed and set aside the order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat by which the learned Magistrate rejected the application Exh.28 submitted by respondent No.2 – original accused for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") and consequently allowed the said application Exh.28 and ordered further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and directed the Investigating Officer to further investigate the case on the points/issues mentioned in application Exh.28 and submit the report within two months.

2.1. Special Criminal Application No.1131 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioners herein – original complainant (and original accused of FIR being ICR No.257 of 2009) to quash and set aside the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2011 and consequently to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.816 of 2011 filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat regarding registration of FIR with an order for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2.2. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1746 of 2012 has been preferred by the applicants of the said application for permitting them to be joined as party respondents in Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012.

3. The facts leading to present proceedings and which are very necessary for determination of the present proceedings in nutshell are as under:

3.1 That the applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.44 of 2012 – original complainant – Nitinbhai Mangubhai Patel lodged an FIR with Puna Police Station, Surat against the respondent No.2 herein – Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 511, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."), which was numbered as C.R. No.I-257 of 2009. That the said FIR was lodged with the Puna Police Station, Surat on 22.12.2009. That after the investigation was concluded, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against all the accused persons in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat on 22.04.2010 for the offences under