Judgment :- 1. This revision challenges the correctness of the order passed by the learned First Class Magistrate of Deviculam ordering the Superintendent of Police to cause further investigation on a final report submitted by the Inspector of Police under S.173, Crl. P. C. On a complaint by the respondent for alleged offences under S.408 and 477-A, IPC. against the petitioner, Crime No. 38/64 was registered at the Munnar Police Station. The Circle Inspector of Police, Munnar after investigation referred the case as one of mistake of fact and sent up his report to the court. The respondent objected to the disposal and it was brought to the notice of the court that the Superintendent of Police has ordered further investigation and the report of the Inspector may not be accepted. After hearing parties learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. 2. The question for decision is whether the court on receipt of a referred charge sheet has got the power to order further investigation. Under S.173(2), Crl P. C. the final report has to be sent through the superior officer and that officer has got the right to direct further investigation pending the orders to be passed by the Magistrate. In this case the learned Magistrate was informed that the Superintendent of Police has ordered further investigation and the learned Magistrate would have been perfectly justified in keeping the final report without passing final orders awaiting the report of the police after further investigation. The learned Magistrate has instead of awaiting the final report directed the Superintendent of Police to cause further investigation to be made. What is contended is that the Magistrate has no such power. Whether the Magistrate has power or not it is now stated by the State Prosecutor that the matter has been ordered to be further investigated by the Superintendent of Police. There is therefore no merit in the objection raised "by the petitioner. 3. That the Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct further investigation is supported by the decision in Boywalla v. Sorab Rustomji (AIR. 1941 Bom. 294) where it is observed: "When in the case of a man who has been arrested and released on bail, the police officer reports that there appears to be no case, and invites the Magistrate to discharge the man, the Magistrate is not bound to act upon the police view. 1941 Bom. 294) where it is observed: "When in the case of a man who has been arrested and released on bail, the police officer reports that there appears to be no case, and invites the Magistrate to discharge the man, the Magistrate is not bound to act upon the police view. He can undoubtedly say, "I will have a further inquiry into the matter. I think the police are wrong in suggesting that the accused should be discharged". And he may order further investigation." 4. No decision taking a contrary view has been pointed out to me. In any case as stated already there can be no objection to the Superintendent of Police ordering a fresh investigation and that has been ordered. 5. The revision petition is devoid of merits and it is dismissed. Interim stay granted by this court is vacated. Dismissed.