ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.394 of 2015 in S.C.No.238 of 2015, dated 02.11.2016, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in allowing the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the present Criminal Revision Petition in short are as follows:

(i) The second respondent is the defacto complainant. The revision petitioner No.1/first accused is none other than the defacto complainant's sister's husband and the second accused is none other than his own brother. The defacto complainant has lodged a complaint with the first respondent and on that basis F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.575 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 368, 386 and 506(ii) I.P.C., and the final report was taken on file in P.R.C.No.38 of 2014, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, against the present revision petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, after complying with all necessary legal formalities, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.238 of 2015 and subsequently, the said case was made over to the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thanjavur.

(ii) The second respondent/defacto complainant, alleging that the first respondent has not conducted the investigation properly, has filed a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C in Cr.M.P.No.394 of 2015 seeking orders directing the first respondent to investigate the matter further and file a fresh charge sheet incorporating all the material facts. The first respondent as well the accused 1 and 2 and the accused A.3 and A.4 have filed counter statements rising serious objections.

(iii) The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, after enquiry, has passed an order dated 04.03.2016 dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the defacto complainant has preferred a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.177 of 2016 and this Court, vide order dated 11.08.2016, has allowed the revision, setting aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.394 of 2015 and directed the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge to restore the said application to his file, to rehear the matter and pass orders in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said orders of this Court, the petition was restored to file and after hearing the learned Counsel for all the parties and on perusing the materials placed on record, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, has passed the impugned order dated 02.11.2016, allowing the petition and thereby directed the first respondent to investigate the matter further under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and file a fresh charge sheet within two months, incorporating all the material facts. Aggrieved by the said order, all the four accused have now come forward with the present Criminal Revision Petition.

3. In the petition filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C,, in Cr.M.P.No.394 of

2015, the defacto complainant has listed out the following the defects in the investigation and the same are extracted herein:

“ 1. There are actually 8 accused committing the crime. But the I.O., has omitted 4 accused for the reasons best known to him.

2. Place of occurrence is shown as road running from West to East instead of the fact that the road is actually running from North to South.

3. The Registration No of the TATA Sumo car has been shown as T-51-R-0617 in FIR and Charge Sheet. But the Registration No has been quoted as “TN-49R-0617 in the statement given by the confession witness by name R.Marimuthu whereas the Registration No has been quoted as “TN-59R-0617” in the statement given by the confession witness by name Ragu.

4. The witness by name R.Marimuthu who happened to be the eye witness witnessing the scene of occurrence regarding the execution of the sale at Vallam Sub Registrar Office has been wrongly cited as the witness for the confession given by the A.2.”

4. In the