RAJESHWAR SINGH, J. This is a petition under Section 482. Cr. P. C. Wherein it has been prayed that letter dated 27th July, 1987 from C. B. , C. I. D. directing arrest of the petitioners be quashed and in the meantime the petitioners be not arrested. 2. The facts of the case are that a person was said to have been mur dered. Regarding it a case was registered at the police station. Then the complainant filed a complaint in the court of the Magistrate and the Magis trate took cognizance. Against that, the accused filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and the hearing of that case has been stayed. It appears that no final report was submitted in connection with the registration of the case at the police station and in all probability it was handed over to c. B. , C. I. D. The C. B. , C. I. D. on its letter dated 27th July, 1987 which Is "sought to be quashed has requested the Civil Police that the accused be arrested and a remand should be had relating to them. Those accused have filed this applica tion under Section 482, Cr. P. C. with the prayer as noted earlier. The argu ment is that when once the Magistrate has taken cognizance the investigation cannot proceed; or at least the accused cannot be arrested. 3. Formerly, there was no clear provision in the old Cr. P. C. of 1898. In the case of Ram Lal Narang, AIR 1979 SC 1791 the Supreme Court said that notwithstanding that a Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence upon police report submitted under Section 173 of 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate is not exhausted and the police can exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information comes to light. There was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 which expressly or by necessary implication barred the right of the police to further investigate after cognizance of the case had been taken by the Magistrate. Neither Section 173, nor Section 190 say that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice convenience and preponderance of authority permits repeated investigation on discovery of fresh facts. 4. Thereafter the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 came into force. Neither Section 173, nor Section 190 say that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice convenience and preponderance of authority permits repeated investigation on discovery of fresh facts. 4. Thereafter the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 came into force. In the Code under Section 173, sub-section (8) was added. This says that nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magis trate and where upon such investigation the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence oral or documentary, he shah furnish to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed. This indicates that further investigation after submission of the report by the police under Section 173, Cr. P. C. is not barred. 5. This provision came to be considered in the case of Achhan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1982 ALJ (NOC) 31. There a bench of this Court said that notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173, Cr. P. C. the right of the police to further investigation is not exhausted and the police can exercise such right as often as necessary. 6. Thr difference in the present case is that the Magistrate has taken cognizence not on police report, but on a complaint, while in the report cases the Magistrate had taken cognizance on the basis of police reported. But the distinction is not material and the law as laid down in the above rulings will apply. 7. Then comes the power of this court to stay arrest under Section 482, Cr. P. C. In the case of Puttan Singh v. State, 1987 AWC 404 a Division Bench of this court held that under Section 482, Cr. P. C. this court has no power to stay arrest. A Full Bench of this court in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U. P. , AIR 1987 All 235 , has said that judicial opinion seems to be settled and we have several authorities of the Supreme Court where interference by the Court into police investigation has been disapproved. P. C. this court has no power to stay arrest. A Full Bench of this court in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U. P. , AIR 1987 All 235 , has said that judicial opinion seems to be settled and we have several authorities of the Supreme Court where interference by the Court into police investigation has been disapproved. It cited the observation of Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 198: that the function of the judiciary and the police are complimentary, not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always of course, subject to the right of the court interfere in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. 8. Here the position is that a complaint is pending and investigation is also proceeding. In this respect Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been enacted and it is for the Magistrate to see as to which sub-section is applicable and to take action according to law. In any case, this petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .