JUDGMENT K.K.Birla 1. This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC preferred by Sri Daya Shanker Singh for staying the proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 1984 pending in the court of Special Judge, Jaunpur. 2. A gruesome incident took place in which several persons were murdered and several persons were injured. The FIR was lodged by Sri Chiranjivi Rai on 8- 5-84 against the petitioner and 13 others named persons and 4-5 unknown persons. A charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and 15 others for the various offences. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 9- 10-84. The further investigation was ordered by the State Government to be conducted by the CB CID regarding which the permission of the Sessions Judge was also obtained on 30-4-86 (vide Annexure-I). On 26-8-86 the Special Judge before whom the case was pending did not stay the proceedings indefinitely but granted one month time only and fixed 3-10-86 for framing of charges, if any. Being aggrieved by this order Sri Daya Shanker Singh has moved this petition for the stay of the proceedings of the aforesaid case as mentioned above. The petitioner and Sri Chiranjivi Rai, opposite party have exchanged the affidavits. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation is being done by the CB CID as the earlier investigation had not inspired confidence, that after investigation fresh material may come and no offence be made out against the petitioner and others, that if the Sessions trial proceeds the petitioner may be deprived of the benefit of this investigation and, therefore, the Sessions trial should be stayed. It is, in fact been contended that once the investigation has been ordered, the Sessions trial legally could not proceed and must be stayed. On the other hand it has been contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party Chiranjivi Rai that there was no suspicion regarding the earlier investigation and that investigation was manoeuvered by political pressure. IT was also contended that stay cannot be granted even if re-investigation has been ordered. 4. I have heard the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It cannot be doubted in view of section 173 (8) CrPC that further investigation or re-investigation can be ordered even after charge sheet has been submitted. IT was also contended that stay cannot be granted even if re-investigation has been ordered. 4. I have heard the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It cannot be doubted in view of section 173 (8) CrPC that further investigation or re-investigation can be ordered even after charge sheet has been submitted. Even though this provision of sub-section (8) of section 173 has been introduced in the new Criminal Procedure Code (Act No. 2 of 1974) the order of further investigation even after cognizance of the case being taken by the Magistrate had been held to be valid. See Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 SC 1791. 5. The short point for consideration in this case is whether on the reinvestigation being made the Court is bound to stay the proceedings of the trial and whether the proceedings of the above mentioned sessions trial should be stayed till the report of re-investigation is being received. In its support the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Criminal Misc. Petition No. 14214 of 1987 decided on 24-12-87. In this case the special Judge had directed investigation under section 173 (8) CrPC by the CB CID but the proceedings were not stayed and Hon. S. I. Jafri, J. passed the order for staying the proceedings against the petitioner before the Special Judge till the conclusion of the investigation by the CB CID in that sessions trial. It is intended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by following the principles of this case the proceeding in such cases must be legally stayed. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party has relied on the case of Criminal Misc. Petition No. 456 of 1987 Balwant Singh v. State of U. P., decided on 7-7-87. In this case the cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate against the accused for the offences under section 147/148/149/323/302 IPC at the instance of one accused the State Government ordered for further investigation by the CID and an application was made before the Magistrate for giving permission for further investigation and for not committing the case to the court of sessions. The Magistrate was of the opinion that no permission from the Magistrate was necessary and the investigation could be done and that there was no justification for staying the proceedings. The Magistrate was of the opinion that no permission from the Magistrate was necessary and the investigation could be done and that there was no justification for staying the proceedings. In the petition preferred against this order Hon. P. S. Gupta, J. did not find any illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate and further held that it was not obligatory on the Magistrate to stay the further proceedings on knowing about the re-investigation of the case. He accordingly dismissed the petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that in view of principle laid down in this case the proceedings could not be stayed. 6. During the arguments it was also suggested that inconsistent views have been taken in these two cases and the controversy needs to be resolved by a larger Bench. In my opinion this contention cannot be accepted. In the above referred case of Rajuwan and others no principle of law to the effect that further proceedings in the case shall be stayed, if re-investigation/further investigation is being conducted has been laid down. The relevant portion is being quoted below : "I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. It is contended by him that though the Special Judge has directed investigation u/Sec. 173 (8) CrPC by the CB CID but the Special Judge has not stayed proceedings in the trial Court. I have given my anxious thought to this aspect of the matter and I consider it proper that the proceedings shall remain stayed before the Special Judge till the conclusion of the investigation by the CB CID. However as soon as the investigation is completed by the CB CID it will be open to the Special Judge to proceed in accordance with the law. In the result, the proceedings pending against the applicant before the Special Judge shall remain stayed till the conclusion of the investigation by the CB CID in S. T. No. 97 of 87, State v. Moti Lal. With the above observation this application is finally disposed of. " 7. The above order clearly shows that no principle of law has been laid down. The learned Judge considered it proper to stay the proceedings in the circumstances of the case and as such stayed the same. 8. With the above observation this application is finally disposed of. " 7. The above order clearly shows that no principle of law has been laid down. The learned Judge considered it proper to stay the proceedings in the circumstances of the case and as such stayed the same. 8. In the above referred case of Balwant Singh as well no such principle of law has been laid down that in any such case the court shall not stay the proceedings. On the other hand at page 15 of the order it has been observed at one place : " Because as has been shown above that it is not necessary to stay the further judicial proceedings after taking cognizance.........It was not obligatory for the learned Magistrate that he ought to have stayed the further proceedings after receiving the information regarding re-investigation. " This case too supports the proposition that the court is not bound to stay the further proceedings on the pendency of the re-investigation. In my opinion no hard and fast rule or proposition can be laid down. It is a matter which has to be left to the discretion of the court concerned which is to be exercised by him taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of that particular case. 9. In the above cited case of Ram Lal Narang it has been observed : "Anyone acquainted with the day-to-day working of the criminal courts will be alive to the practical necessity of the police possessing the power to make further investigation and submit a supplemental report. It is in the interests of both the prosecution and the defence that the police should have such power. It is easy to visualise a case where fresh material may come to light which would implicate persons already accused. When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of alibi and submit a report to the Magistrate ? After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly, where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly, where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of the other persons. In either case, it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the ease is before him. If he has already taken cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the enquiry or trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused, in a single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. " 10. This too supports the view that the matter should be left to the discretion of the court. There may be case where the Magistrate may feel that re-investigation is a ploy to delay the trial, in such cases he may not be inclined to stay the proceedings. In other cases he may feel that the proceedings may be stayed for a reasonable time or till the conclusion of re-investigation. In view of the above discussion I hold that the contention that in every case of re-investigation the court is bound to stay the further judicial proceedings pending in that court cannot be accepted and the matter will have to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case by the court in whose vest the discretion in this regard. 11. As regards the case before me that re-investigation was ordered as back as in July 1986, the proceedings in the sessions trial should not be stayed indefinitely on the ground of re-investigation. May be that the CB CID may usually take more time in investigation than the usual investigating agency. 11. As regards the case before me that re-investigation was ordered as back as in July 1986, the proceedings in the sessions trial should not be stayed indefinitely on the ground of re-investigation. May be that the CB CID may usually take more time in investigation than the usual investigating agency. But such investigating agency should also bear in mind the fact of the trial pending in the court. Sufficient time has lapsed. The order for staying the proceedings indefinitely in the sessions trial is not called for and a short further time of two months should be given for doing the needful by the re-investigating agency. The learned Special Judge is directed to fix further date of the case not before 7-6-1988. 12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.