A.Ku. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2.
(2.) The learned counsel for the non petitioner No. 2 was permitted to submit his arguments against the impugned order in view of the fact that Criminal Revision No. 66/1990 was dismissed on the basis of a false information about the final disposal of this petition and the revision petition having become infructuous.
(3.) The non-petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Suratgarh, on 17.6.1987 against eight persons (including the petitioners) and alleged therein the commission of the offences under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. That complaint was forwarded to the police under Sec. 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, vide order dated 29.6.1987. After conducting investigation the police submitted the complaint on the basis of which the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the above mentioned offences and issued process vide order dated 13.11.1987 against the petitioners Nathu and others. A revision petition No. 29/1988 was filed against that order. The Additional Session Judge by his order dated 25.8.1988 set aside the order dated 13.11.1987 and directed the Magistrate to decide the case a fresh after hearing the parties. After hearing the parties the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated 19.1.1990. He held that though the cognizance of the offences was barred, the investigation by the police was not barred. Therefore , he directed the investigation by the police under Sec. 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.;