Petitioners have been shown as accused, in a private complaint preferred by the first respondent, before the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Secs.341 and 397, I.P.C. Learned Magistrate who received the complaint on 211. 1989 forwarded the same for investigation and report to the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri, under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C. Even so, within a short period, on 12. 1989, respondent preferred an application before the same Magistrate to recall the complaint forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri, examine him and his witnesses and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. Learned Magistrate chose to dismiss the petition preferred by the respondent, on the ground that the Inspector of Police was competent to conduct investigation, and had sufficient time, to avoid limitation bar, before filing of the final report. Learned Magistrate has observed that within ten days, the respondent had chosen to plead for recalling of the complaint, without sufficient cause. Aggrieved first respondent preferred CrLR.C.No.16 of 1990 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. First revisional court