The petitioner, who has been implicated in this case as A2 for the alleged offence under Section 392 of I.P.C., has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai to take the amended charge sheet filed by the respondent police in Crime No.729 of 2003 on the file of the respondent police.

2. Mr. M. Ajmalkhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in this case charge sheet was filed under Sections 197 and 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 392 of I.P.C. including the petitioner as one of the accused (A2) and thereafter the case was committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai and the case was made over to First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai and pending in S.C.No.92 of 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed a petition for quashing the F.I.R. before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.845 of 2004 and this Court passed an order dated 25.01.2005 dismissing the petition for quashing and further directed the concerned Investigating Officer to examine the matter independently without reference to the pleadings urged before this Court in quashing petition and find out as to whether the petitioner is involved in the alleged offence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as the Investigating Officer has not taken any steps as per the observation of this Court, the petitioner has been constrained to file a petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for seeking the relief of further investigation and on such petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai directed the respondent police to conduct further investigation and file a charge sheet in accordance with law. It is submitted before this Court today that the Investigating Officer in this case has conducted further investigation as per the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, and also filed the amended charge sheet before the learned Magistrate, but the learned Magistrate declined to accept that amended charge sheet on 16.04.2008 on the ground that the case was already committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge and the Investigating Officer has to file the amended charge sheet only before the learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted that thereafter the Investigating Officer moved before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge and presented the amended charge sheet, but the learned Sessions Judge observed that the Investigating Officer has to file the amended charge sheet only before the learned Magistrate, who has earlier committed the matter to the Court of Sessions. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that in view of the said fact the petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. It is submitted that in the amended charge sheet, the name of the petitioner was deleted and it is stated by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged offences and as such, the petitioner has been put into great hardship in spite of the fact that the final report disclosing that he has not involved in this case, he has to appear before the trial Court regularly for all the dates of hearing and he is undergoing the ordeal of trial.

4. Mr. Ajmalkhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that the only provision available under the Cr.P.C. is Section 173 (2) in respect of the completion of investigation and filing the final report. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. after the completion of further investigation the final report has to be filed only before the learned Magistrate and as such, the learned Magistrate has to accept the amended charge sheet and thereafter the learned Magistrate has to act in accordance with law. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate may be dir