The revisional court has ample power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., but it cannot outline the steps for investigation.

1. - The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Judge has directed the police to further investigate in FIR No.258/2007 under the Provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 had taken a shop namely Ankur Medical & General Store on rent from the respondent No.2, for which respondent No.2 had taken an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner No.1 as security (Pagdi) which was agreed to be refunded upon vacating the shop. A rent agreement was also executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- witnessed by the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and attested by a Notary Public on 08.03.2001. But only after some time, the respondent No.2 started pressurising the petitioner No.1 to vacate the rented shop. In this regard, the respondent No.2, served a legal notice upon the petitioner No.1 in March, 2004; the petitioner No.1 replied and denied the contents thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 was served with a legal notice followed by a notice of a civil suit filed by the respondent No.2 for eviction from the rented shop. The petitioner No.1 came to know that the respondent No.2 had forged an agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- with regard to the rented shop, wherein the clause with regard to the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not mentioned. Therefore, he submitted a complaint against the respondent No.2 before the ACJM, Sawai Madhopur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, & 120B IPC. The said complaint was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 19.05.2007. After investigation, the police filed a negative final report. Against the final report, the petitioner No.1 filed a protest application before the ACJM, Sawai Madhopur. He examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 19.04.2008, the learned Magistrate dismissed the protest application and allowed the final report. Against the order dated 19.04.2008, a revision petition was preferred, which was dismissed on 17.06.2008.

3. The respondent No.2 also preferred a complaint against the petitioners that they had forged a rent agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-.The complaint was sent to Police Station Mantown u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No.258/2007 was registered for offences u/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC on 04.06.2007. However, the Police submitted a final report that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature, which could be decided by a Civil Court. The respondent No.2 neither submitted any protest application, nor examined himself before the learned ACJM, Sawai Madhopur. However, on 03.11.2007, the learned Magistrate disallowed the final report and took cognizance against the petitioners u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the order dated 03.11.2007 before the Additional Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur, which was allowed vide order dated 17.06.2008. The respondent No.2 preferred a criminal revision petition against the order dated 17.06.2008 before this Court. Vide order dated 05.01.2009, this Court allowed the revision petition and while quashing the order dated 17.06.2008 directed the revisional court to re-hear the parties and pass a fresh order after taking into consideration all the grounds raised in the revision petition. Vide order dated 20.03.2009, the learned reivsional court while setting aside the order dated 03.11.2007 directed the learned ACJM, Sawai Madhopur to issue directions to the SHO, Police Station Mantown to further investigate the case in FIR No.258/2007. Hence, this petition before this court.

4. Mr. Anuraga Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that although the revisional court could have directed further investigation, it could not have directed the path to be taken by the Investigating Agency while investigating the case. In the present case, the learned revisional court has delineated the pa