Judgment KAPUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been moved under Section for quashing order dated 6th May, 1988 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that an incident occurred on 15th March, 1987 in which Netram died as a result of the injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner and two others namely Jagdish and Ishwar. A case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences and after investigation, challan against all the accused was filed under Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code upon this. The learned Magistrate took cognizance 31-10-1987 and issued standing warrants of arrest, and proceedings were taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequently, the matter was investigated again by the C. I. D. and after this investigation, ,a challan was filed against accused Jagdish and Ishwar Ram only and these persons were arrested. At the same time, it was reported in the second challan that the petitioners were not implicated in the case and the proceedings against them should be dropped. This prayer of the prosecution was not accepted and the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for canceling the warrants of the petitioners and ordered that fresh warrants of arrest be issued. The petitioners have come up against this order. Their contention is that the matter can be investigated further by the police under Section 173 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code even without the directions of the Magistrate as it is the duty of the police to place all the facts which have come before it, before the Magistrate whether they point towards the guilt of accused or their innocence. Placing reliance on this argument it is contanded that when the police has found that no case has been made out for taking cognizance against them, then the illegal order taking cognizance should be quashed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that cognizance against petitioners has already been taken on 3 1-10-1987 when the earlier challan was filed and the police have no right to investigate the matter again without the permission Magistrate once a report had been submitted before the Court. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that cognizance against petitioners has already been taken on 3 1-10-1987 when the earlier challan was filed and the police have no right to investigate the matter again without the permission Magistrate once a report had been submitted before the Court. ( 4 ) IN Om Prakash Narang and anr v. State (Delhi Administration), the question arose whether the police can make further investigation after cognizance of offence is taken by the Magistrate. It was held that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code 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. The passage may be quoted for advantage in the words of Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy Anyone acquainted with 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 interest 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 not previously accused or absolve 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 bas greater resources at its command than 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 quite and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It - is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate for 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 case is before him. 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 case 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 situation is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. The criticism that a further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceedings before the Court is really not of very great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. That the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make further investigation. ( 5 ) THUS it was said that the right of the police to investigate the case after the submission of challan cannot be said to be barred by any provisions of law but the question which remains to be decided is whether the subsequent finding of the police can be said to be the end of the matter. Here the answer is a clear no because it is eventually for the Magistrate to decide whether in view of the subsequent investigation made by the police, the case against the accused person should be dropped or cognizance should stand as it is. In the present case, it has not been disclosed as to why the subsequent investigation was made by the police. It can be said the same witnesses, who were examined in the earlier investigation have been examined again by the C. I. D. (C. B. ). In the present case, it has not been disclosed as to why the subsequent investigation was made by the police. It can be said the same witnesses, who were examined in the earlier investigation have been examined again by the C. I. D. (C. B. ). It cannot be said at this stage, whether the statements given before the police in the first instance were correct or the statements recorded subsequently by the C. I. D. (C. B.) were correct. A decision cannot be taken by the police as to which statement should be believed and it is only after the witnesses are examined before the court, then it will be found out that what is the correct story. The learned Magistrate i has taken into consideration the circumstances in ordering that cognizance against the petitioners should stand and this order does not require interference. The petitioners have been absconding for a long time and their call before the court by non-bailable warrants is justified in the circumstances of the case. ( 6 ) IN view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed. The standing warrants shall be executed by the police at an early date, in case the petitioners do not surrender. The record of the case be returned immediately to the concerned court.