JUDGMENT 1. - All the three above petitions, which have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be disposed of by a common order as they arise from an order dated 16.5.90 of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Criminal Case No.59/90 arising from FIR No.25/90 P.S.Ashoknagar, Jaipur. 2. In order to appreciate the real dispute between the parties, it is necessary to narrate the facts. 3. One Narain, who is husband of Smt. Sunder and father of deceased Jag-dish, made a report at Police Station Ashoknagar, Jaipur on 24.1.90. It was stated in the report that he has three sons, namely, Jagdish, Shankar and Jairam. His son Jagdish was found dead near Mansarowar in a suspicious circumstances about which FIR No.336/89 has been registered at Police Station Sodala. His three sons had engaged one maid servant by the name Prem for house work. It was further stated that he had constructed a house on a plot at Village Mangyavas and had also purchased one Matador bearing registration No.RRL 6940, one Fiet car bearing registration No.RSB 7121 and one Yezdi Motor-cycle bearing registration No.MXF 9837 and all these vehicles were registered in the name of his son Jag-dish. It was then stated that after the death of his son Jagdish, the maid servant Smt. prem fraudulently and by making misrepresentation got the registration of the above three vehicles in her name from RTO Jaipur, stating herself to be the wife of Jagdish, though in fact jagdish was never married to the said maid servant. According to the report, Jagdish was married on 21.2.85 to one Santosh alias Meera daughter of Hanuman Poonia of Village Sevgaon in Maharashtra. It was further given out in the report that Smt. Prem has taken possession of the vehicles claiming herself to be the wife of Jagdish: Certificates of registration have also been got by her in her name. In the end, a prayer was made that his possession on the house and on the vehicles should be restored and action be taken against Smt. Prem alias Meera. On this report, Criminal case under Section 471 IPC was registered and FIR No.25/90 was chalked out. 4. In the course of the investigation, Police seized the aforesaid three vehicles. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and certain documents were also seized by the Police. On this report, Criminal case under Section 471 IPC was registered and FIR No.25/90 was chalked out. 4. In the course of the investigation, Police seized the aforesaid three vehicles. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and certain documents were also seized by the Police. Thereafter, on the completion of the investigation, a charge- sheet was filed on 20.4.90 against the petitioner Smt. Gabbo under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner Smt. Gabbo on the same date for,the offences under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 5. Before the charge-sheet could be filed by the Police, the non-petitioner Smt. Sunder W/o Shri Ramnarain alias Narain who is the mother of Jagdish, moved an application on 23.3.90 before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur with a prayer to hand over the aforesaid three vehicles, namely, Matador, Fiet Car and Yezdi Motor-cycle, in her custody on the ground that she is the mother of the deceased. Petitioner Smt.Gabbo also moved an application before the learned Magistrate on 24.3.90 to the effect that she should be heard before any order is passed for the custody of the aforesaid vehicles. On 25.3.90 the petitioner Shiv Karim also moved an application for the custody of Matador. The petitioner Smt. Gabbo alias Meera also moved an application for the custody of the aforesaid three vehicles and two 'the has' seized by the Police. Along with that application she submitted certain documents which shall be referred subsequently at a proper stage. 6. Before the aforesaid three applications for the custody of the vehicles, which were filed under section 457 Cr. P.C. could be decided by the learned Magistrate, the Police submitted a charge-sheet in the case on 20.4.90. Thereafter, the petitioner Smt. Gabbo moved a petition on 16.5.90 before the Learned Magistrate to order for further investigation/re-investigation in the case under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. 7. All the aforesaid applications were disposed of by the learned Magistrate by a common order on 16.5.90. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of Smt. Gabbo for delivering the vehicles etc. Thereafter, the petitioner Smt. Gabbo moved a petition on 16.5.90 before the Learned Magistrate to order for further investigation/re-investigation in the case under section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. 7. All the aforesaid applications were disposed of by the learned Magistrate by a common order on 16.5.90. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of Smt. Gabbo for delivering the vehicles etc. in her custody as well as seeking an order for further investigation/re-investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.c, the application of Shiv Karan for the custody of Matador in his favour was also rejected while the application filed by Smt. Sunder was allowed and the aforesaid three vehicles were ordered to be given in her custody. Though in the order it has not been mentioned that the order has been passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C., but the said order should be deemed to be one under the said section, as charge-sheet was already filed and the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner before the impugned order was passed on 16.5.90. 8. It will not be out of place to briefly state the plea of the petitioner Smt. Gabbo alias Meera. Smt. Gabbo is the daughter of one Ram Kumar of Village Padsdi Tehsil Dudu District Jaipur. According to her, after attaining the age of maturity; she came in contact of Jagdish (since deceased), son of the informant Narain, she was at Jaipur. They fell in love with each other and got married on 30.1.82 as per Arya Samaj customs which were performed at Arya Samaj, Kishan Pole Bazar, Jaipur. After the marriage, her husband, late Jagdish, gave her new name, i.e. Manju. After coming at her matrimonial home she was used to be called as `Meera Devi'. According to her, she was to be called as 'Prem' also by her husband Jagdish out of love and affection. According to her, her husband Jagdish met an accidental death on July 27, 1989. After her husband's death, the behaviour of her in-laws was changed towards her and ultimately she had to leave her matrimonial home. According to her, all the aforesaid three vehicles were purchased by her husband and after his death, she got the registration of those vehicles in her name and in doing so, no fault was committed by her. She has also filed certain documents and photographs in the Court of learned Magistrate. According to her, all the aforesaid three vehicles were purchased by her husband and after his death, she got the registration of those vehicles in her name and in doing so, no fault was committed by her. She has also filed certain documents and photographs in the Court of learned Magistrate. Certain documents were also seized by the Police which were submitted along with Challan Papers. Out of those documents, one is a marriage certificate issued by the institution Arya Samaj, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur, and is dated 30.1.82 testifying the marriage of Jagdish with the petitioner Gabbo alias Manju. A photostat copy of family card (rashion card) issued by Gram Panchayat " vtejtiqj " has also been produced in which the petitioner Smt. Gabbo has been shown as wife of Jagdish, though her name has been mentioned as 'Meera'. In the said Rashion Card the name of her mother-in-law Smt. Sunder and father-in-law Shri Narain have also been mentioned. Some photographs have also been produced, out of which, in two photographs the petitioner Smt. Gabbo alias Meera has been shown along with Jagdish, garlanding each other, presumably at the time of marriage. The other photographs are along with other family members. Then there is a letter by Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., addressed to the Chairman, Pinkcity Thela Hawker Sangh, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Along with the said letter a cheque of Rs.5,000/- towards the claim under insurance policy on accidental death of Jagdish given to the wife of Jagdish, namely, Smt. Meera. A copy of the aforesaid cheque was also produced. One discharge ticket of Anil Nursing Home has also been produced by the petitioner Smt. Gabbo in which she has been shown as wife of Jagdish. There are other documents also to show that she was living with Jagdish as his wife. 9. In the background of the aforesaid facts, I proceed to dispose of the aforesaid three Criminal Misc. petitions: (1) Criminal Misc. Petition No.764/90 Smt. Gabbo alias Snit. Meera v. State of Rajasthan . 10. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Magistrate declining further investigation/re- investigation of the case under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Mr. Yadav, the learned counsel for Snit. petitions: (1) Criminal Misc. Petition No.764/90 Smt. Gabbo alias Snit. Meera v. State of Rajasthan . 10. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Magistrate declining further investigation/re- investigation of the case under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Mr. Yadav, the learned counsel for Snit. Gabbo alias Meera, has vehemently argued that the investigation was not fair and it was completely one-sided, inasmuch as, the Investigating Agency did not try to investigate the matter on series of facts which are very much relevant and important. According to the learned counsel, Smt. Gabbo is the legally weded wife of late Jagdish and the marriage ceremony was performed in Arya Samaj, Kishan Pole Bazar, Jaipur, and one Shri Satpal was the Purohit who had performed, the religious ceremony. According to the learned counsel, no attempt was made by the Investigating Agency either to record the statement of Shri Satpal or to investigate with regard to the aforesaid marriage of the petitioner with the late Jagdish. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner Smt. Gabbo was treated as Anil Nursing Home, Motidoongri, Jaipur, as she was not giving birth to a child, but no attempt was made by the Investigating Agency to seize the documents from the said Nursing Home and further no attempt was made to record the statements of the witnesses who had treated the petitioner. The learned counsel further drew the attention of the Court on that certain photographs which have been produced in the Court and submits that these could have been seized by the Police as from those photographs the marriage of the petitioner with late Jagdish stands established. No investigation was also made with regard to the payment of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner by a cheque, on the death of Jagdish, by the Oriental Insurance Company. Giving these illustrations, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that the matter requires re-investigation, as such; the learfied 'Magistrate should have directed for re-investigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. In this connection, thelearned counsel has placed reliance on Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration and another (1988 SCC (Supple.)482) . 11. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. In this connection, thelearned counsel has placed reliance on Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration and another (1988 SCC (Supple.)482) . 11. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Kaushik argued that the purpose of enacting Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is not to entertain an application of the accused for further investigation/re-investigation on the ground that the Police did not collect some evidence which could have proved his/her alibi right of private defence or other defence which the accused wanted to take. According to learned Public Prosecutor, if such applications arc allowed, then the very purpose of this petition shall be frustrated, inasmuch, as no finality will even be attached to any investigation and resultant charge-sheet by the Investigating Agency. 12. To appreciate the arguments of the parties, it is necessary to make a brief scrutiny of the relevant sections of the Cr.P.C. 13. On getting information of a cognizable offence the case/FIR is registered under section 154 Cr.P.C., and the Investigating Officer begins investigation under section 157 Cr.P.C. and after holding a preliminary inquiry and examination of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., recording confession or further statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. and making such search and seizure as deemed necessary and after completing further investigation, a report is submitted by the Investigating Officer which is known as 'Police Report' under section 173(2). Cr.P.C. This Police Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is the only report for the purposes of taking cognizance of an offence as provided in Section 190(1)(b). Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., which is relevant for the present, reads as under: "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 Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)." 14. Sub-section(8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. only lays down a deeming provision. Sub-section(8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. only lays down a deeming provision. The necessity for providing such a deeming provision is to be found in the 41st report of the Law Commission of India which is quoted as under: "A report under Section 173 is normally the end of the investigation. Some-times, however, the Police Officer after submitting the report, under Section 173, comes upon evidence bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. We should have thought that the Police Officer can collect that evidence and sent it to the Magistrate concerned. It appears, however, that Courts have sometimes taken the narrow view that once a final report under Section 173 has been sent, the Police cannot touch the case again and reopen the investigation. This places a hindrance in the way of the Investigating agency which can be more unfair to the prosecution, and, for that matter, even to the accused. It should be made clear in Section 173 that the competent Police Officer can examine such evidence and send a report to the Magi state......."(underlining (Black) by me). 15. Before the aforesaid provision was enacted, there was a conflict in judicial opinions as to whether a further investigation is permissible in a given case after the Final Report having been forwarded by the Investigating Officer and accepted by the concerned Court. In order to remove doubts which was ex,pressed in some judicial decisions that no further investigation is permissible after a Final Report/Police Report is submitted under section 173 Cr.P.C., an express provision has been made investing powers of further investigation to the Investigating Officer in a given case if he thinks that some more material should be collected by him or when fresh evidence comes to his notice. The language of the aforesaid provision is also suggestive that it is only permissible in character. The Investigating Officer (or Officer-in-charge of Police Station) may undertake a further investigation even after filing of a charge-sheet. If he does so, the further evidence collected by him should be forwarded to the Magistrate along with a further report. Therefore, I am clearly of the view that neither the prosecution, i.e., the informant, nor the accused can claim, as a matter of right, a direction from a Court commanding further investigation by Investigating Officer under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., after a charge-sheet was filed after investigation. 16. Therefore, I am clearly of the view that neither the prosecution, i.e., the informant, nor the accused can claim, as a matter of right, a direction from a Court commanding further investigation by Investigating Officer under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., after a charge-sheet was filed after investigation. 16. The matter may be examined from another angle also. In every investigation of a criminal case, there must be a point of finality. The law expects the discharge of duties by the Investigating Officer properly resulting in a report under Section 173(2). It may only be in some exceptional case where the Investigating officer may have to collect some further evidence/materials and submit it to the Magistrate along with his further report. Such an exceptional case will only prove the general rule that normally investigation terminates with filing of the charge-sheet in Court. 17. Our experience shows that sometimes fresh material/evidence may come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused. There may be a case when it comes to the notice of the investigating Agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi. In such a situation, the Investigating Agency cannot keep quite and, refuse to further investigate the matter. It can also not be disputed that some times the evidence of good defence like alibi etc., if comes to the notice of the Investigating Agency, it may be a duty of the Investigating Officer to make further investigation, but further investigation is necessary or not is a question which will obviously have to be left to the choice of the Investigating Officer. It is also true that the Magistrate may also give direction for further investigation in a given case. But the aforesaid powers have to be exercised sparingly and in some exceptional cases and not in a normal course on a mere application by a complainant or an accused. 18. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the Investigating Agency has submitted Police Report/charge-sheet after collecting the evidence. From those papers it also appears that some evidence, which the accused may rely in his defence, has also been collected by the Investigating Agency. The accused wants further investigation in the case to collect that evidence which he can produce in defence to prove that she is the legally weded wife of late Jagdish. From those papers it also appears that some evidence, which the accused may rely in his defence, has also been collected by the Investigating Agency. The accused wants further investigation in the case to collect that evidence which he can produce in defence to prove that she is the legally weded wife of late Jagdish. In such a situation the accused cannot claim as of right that further investigation should be ordered and in my view, no error has been committed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application of the petitioner Smt. Gabbo alias Smt. Meera filed under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. to order further investigation in the case. 19. Hence, Criminal Misc. Petition No.764/90 has no merit and the same is dismissed. (2) Criminal Misc. Petition No.585/90 Smt.Gabbo alias Smt. Meera v. State of Rajasthan and another . (3) Criminal Misc. Petition No.620/90 Shiv Karan v. State of Rajasthan and another . 20. Both these petitions can be dealt together as they pertain to the custody of the vehicles. The learned Magistrate has granted the custody of the aforesaid vehicles to Smt. Sunder on the ground that she happens to be the mother of the deceased Jagdish. as such, she has a better claim in comparison to the petitioner Smt. Gabbo alias Smt.Meera. While deciding this question, the learned Magistrate completely ignored to consider a number of documents and other material/evidence on the record. Some of the documents had already been referred by me in the preceding paragraphs, as such, I need not repeat them again. Suffice it to say. that from those documents and even from other evidence on record, prima facie the following facts are made out:- (i) The petitioner Smt. Gabbo alias Smt.Meera was living with the deceased Jagdish since much prior to his death; (ii) The marriage of Smt.Gabbo with late Jagdish appears to have been ceremonised in Arya Samaj Bhawan, Kishanpol Bazar, Jaipur, as revealed from the marriage certificate and certain photographs which are on the record of the Trial Court and this marriage had taken place much prior to the death of Jagdish. Whether the said marriage is a legal one or not, presently I am not concerned with it; (iii) She also got a cheque of Rs. Whether the said marriage is a legal one or not, presently I am not concerned with it; (iii) She also got a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- from the Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd., towards the policy covering accidents on the death of Jagdish; (iv) All the three vehicles have been registered in her name in the Office of RTO, Jaipur, after the death of Jagdish; (v) The informant, the father of deceased Jagdish, was not in possession of the aforesaid vehicles & Thelas and the house when the report was made by him and that the petitioner Smt.Gabbo was in possession of the same, as in the report, and he had made a prayer that his possession on the same may be restored. The prosecution witness has also admitted that the petitioner. Smt.Gabbo alias Smt.Meera was with Jagdish,though as a maid servant. 21. From the above facts' it is established that Smt.Gabbo alias Smt.Meera was living with the deceased Jagdish and she was living as his wife and after his death, all the three vehicles were transferred in her name and presently she is the registered owner of all the three vehicles. 22. The argument of the learned counsel for Smt.Sunder is that the earlier marriage of Jagdish with Snit. Santosh was subsisting and, as such, the petitioner Smt.Gabbo could not have been a legally married wife as the second marriage is void. 23. At present, it is not relevant as to whether the alleged marriage of Smt.Gabbo with the deceased Jagdish is valid or not as the Court is only con,cerned about the interim custody of the vehicles. The learned Magistrate did not consider the claim of the petitioner Smt.Gabbo in a proper perspective in the light of the various documents and evidence on the record. The petitioner Smt. Gabbo had been in possession of the vehicles since much prior than the lodging of this report and she is the registered owner of these vehicles presently. She is also claiming herself to be the wife of late Jagdish and her claim cannot be said to be unfounded altogether. Her claim cannot be defeated do mere on sentiments on the ground that she is not living a chaste life, as some of the witnesses has stated so in their statements. 24. She is also claiming herself to be the wife of late Jagdish and her claim cannot be said to be unfounded altogether. Her claim cannot be defeated do mere on sentiments on the ground that she is not living a chaste life, as some of the witnesses has stated so in their statements. 24. Thus, the learned Magistrate has committed an error on the face of the record in passing the impugned order with regard to the custody of the vehicles. the order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is not revisable being of inter locuiary nature, as such, Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure is the only provision by which the interference can be made by this Court. 25. So far the claim of petitioner Shiv Karan is concerned, nobody had appeared in the Trial Court to press his application and the learned Trial Court rightly rejected his application. I have also perused the material on record in the light as to whether the petitioner Shiv karan has a better claim for the custody of the vehicle Matador, but I do not find any convincing material on the record so as to make interference in the order of the learned Magistrate. 26. The net result of the above discussion is that Criminal Misc. Petition No.620/90 has no merit and the same is dismissed. Criminal Misc.Petition No.585/90 Smt. Gabbo alias Smt. Meera v. State of Rajasthan and another is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate giving the custody of the aforesaid three vehicles, namely, Matador having registration No.RRL 6940, Fiet Car having registration No.RSB 7121, Yezdi Motor-cycle having registration No.MXF 9837 and 'Thelas' in question to Smt. Sunder is set aside and it is directed that the aforesaid vehicles and the las shall be given in the custody of the petitioner Smt. Gabbo alias Smt. Meera on the following condi tions:- (i) The petitioner Smt.Gabbo alias Smt. Meera shall furnish a 'Supurdginama' of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) and one security in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) and one security in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. (ii) She will produce the said vehicles & Thelas as and when asked to do so by the aforesaid Court/Trial court or any other competent Court during the pendency of inquiry or trial, as the case may be; (iii) She will not sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer the aforesaid vehicles & Thelas to any person during the pendency of inquiry or trial, nor any alteration or modification shall be made without seeking prior permission of the aforesaid Court/Trial Court, as the case may be; (iv) Before delivering the custody to her, the learned Magistrate shall obtain three coloured photographs of cabinet size of each of the vehicles and one photograph of each of the 'Thelas' and the same shall be placed in the file of the case. The photographs of the vehicles shall be taken from different angles but showing the registration No. of the vehicles. 27. It appears that the aforesaid articles/vehicles have been delivered in the custody of non-petitioner Smt.Sunder in pursuance to the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, hence, the learned Magistrate shall take steps that those articles are taken back from Smt. Sunder and be delivered to the petitioner Smt.Gabbo alias Smt.Meera on fulfilment on the aforesaid conditions. 28. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately for necessary compliance in this connection. 29. All the aforesaid three petitions are therefore disposed of an indicated above.Petition 585/90 Allowed. *******