1. Crl. R.C. No. 1164 of 2009 challenges the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Dharmapuri, passed in Crl. M.P. No. 5599 of 2008 in C.C. No. 122 of 2008 on 30.10.2009.

2. Petitioner/de facto complainant preferred a complaint informing that his mother M. Nagayam, was allotted an Indane Gas Agency on compassionate ground since another son of hers had sacrificed his life while serving the Indian Army. Petitioner's mother has nominated the petitioner as her agent and one E.V. Rajasekar, second respondent in revision and third respondent in original petition, as Manager, he being a family friend. A joint account was opened in the name of petitioner and E.V. Rajasekar. The accusation is that the E.V. Rajasekar has misused the cheques signed by petitioner and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 5,85,000/-. Further, E.V. Rajasekar has obtained a cheque book for petitioner's personal account by forging his signature and issued cheques to accused 3 to 5 in the complaint to the tune of Rs. 31,00,000/- which on presentation were returned unpaid and hence, a case alleging offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments is pending against petitioner and his mother. E.V. Rajasekar and his wife Shanthi have fabricated the Partnership Deed of the Gas Agency and are claiming right over the distributorship of the Gas Agency. When the same was questioned, they threatened petitioner and his staff as also took away vital documents of the Gas Agency. That apart, E.V. Rajasekar had purchased a lorry in the name of his wife and EMIs are being paid out of the profit of the Gas Agency. Petitioner preferred a complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate I, Dharmapuri and the same was taken on file in Crime No. 20 of 2007 on the file of first respondent for offences u/s. 419, 465, 379 and 420 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed informing commission of offences u/s. 465, 468, 406, 403 and 420 IPC. Not satisfied with the conduct of investigation, petitioner preferred Crl. M.P. No. 5599 of 2008 in C.C. No. 122 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Dharmapuri, seeking further investigation or re-investigation by second respondent viz. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri or any other competent officer. On dismissal of such petition under orders dated 30.10.2009, petitioner has preferred the present revision.

3. Crl. O.P. No. 27092 of 2009 has been filed seeking a direction towards further investigation in Crime No. 20 of 2007 on the file of first respondent by second respondent.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and learned senior counsel for other respondents.

5. Taking this Court through the order of Court below, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Court below has dismissed Crl. M.P. No. 5599 of 2008 in C.C. No. 122 of 2008 on the following reasoning:

1. That the petition moved by petitioner/de facto complainant was not maintainable.

2. That the remedy of petitioner lies under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. That the petition had been moved belatedly.

6. Learned counsel submitted that upon completion of investigation and filing of final report, no notice has been caused to petitioner in keeping with Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Such act runs contra to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Another, 1985 (2) SCC 537. Informing that he was aware of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnathambi @ Subramani vs. State, 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 485 which inter-alia held that after taking of cognizance further investigation could be sought only by the investigation agency, learned counsel submitted that such observation of the Full Bench came about pursuant to judgment of Supreme Court. Learned counsel submitted that the bar informed in the judgment of the Full Bench would not apply in the instant case inasmuch as no notice of the final report had been caused to de