TIBREWAL, J. — This petition unde Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed under peculiar circumstances with a prayer to give direction to stop further investigation in Criminal Case F.I.R. 82/89 dated 24-5-1989, Police Station Laxman Garh, District Sikar. (2). In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to narrate the facts. (3). On May 24,1989 a written report was lodged at Police Station Laxmangarh (District Sikar) by one Shri Richhpal. Singh. On this report, criminal case F.I.R. No. 82/89 was registered under sections 147,323 & 302 I.P.C. against 10 (ten) persons including the eight petitioners. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Karan Singh was conducted by the doctor on May 24, 1989 at 4.40 P.M. On examination, the doctor found two injuries on the person of the deceased namely, (1) Haemorrhage (2) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the left foot & 1/2" 1/2" on the Ring Finger of right hand. The doctor found the Liver be enlarged. As per provisional opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to Live rupture Haemorrhage and Shock. (4). After registration of the case, the investigation was started by Sh. Ranglal, S.H.O. Police Station Laxmangarh. Thereafter, the Supdt. of Police, Sikar transferred the investigation of the case to be made by Sh. G.L. Sharma, Addl. Supdt. of Police, District Sikar. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. The co-accused Ramlal and Khurda Ram were arrested by him. They were also interrogated by him. The Addl. Supdt. of Police submitted the factual report of the investigation carried on by him upto June 20, 1989. In the factual report, he mentioned that as per the post-mortem report the deceased had two injuries and death was caused due to repture of the liver. He further mentioned in the report that so far the witnesses belonging to the complainant party were concerned, they implicated all the ten accused persons, but as per the independent witness all the ten persons did not participate in the beating and that from the post-mortem report it did not appear that all the ten persons participated in the beating of the deceased. He also mentioned in his report that in the course of interrogations of the witnesses, the presence of Ratanlal and Goverdhan Singh, at the time of incident, was also revealed, who were independent persons. He also mentioned in his report that in the course of interrogations of the witnesses, the presence of Ratanlal and Goverdhan Singh, at the time of incident, was also revealed, who were independent persons. He also mentioned that between the parties, a number of cases were going and the report was made by the complainant with exaggerations. (5). It appears that subsequently the investigation was handed over to Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Circle Inspector, C.I.D. (C.B.), Jaipur. After investigation, he arrived at the conclusion that the incident took place between the deceased Karan Singh and co-accused Ramlal and Khurda Ram and only these two persons had participated in the incident, but on account of previous enmity, the names of other persons have been mentioned in the report. He also reported that the investigation is complete. (6). Thereafter, the investigation was again transferred to Sh. Mahendra Singh, Addl. Supdt. of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.) Jaipur Range. (7). It appears that the investigation of the case was again handed over to Addl. Supdt. of Police, Sikar on the orders of I.G. Police. The Addl. Supdt. of Police Sikar also came to the conclusion that the report was made by the complainant after exaggerating the facts as there was a long standing enmity between the parties. It further appears that the report was also prepared by A.P.P.I., Sikar on the basis of the investigation completed by them and as per this report the co-accused Ramlal and Khurda Ram only had participated in the incident and it was recommended that challan be filed against them under sections 302,341 and 323 I.P.C. (8). Consequently, a charge sheet was filed against the co-accused Ramlal & Khurda Ram in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate- I, Fatehpur sometime in the month of April, 1990. (9). After submission of the charge-sheet, the complainant had moved an application in the Court of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate. Fatehpur to the effect that cognizance be taken against the remaining eight accused persons i.e. the petitioners. (10). The learned Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record and the statements of the witnesses took cognizance against the co-accused Ramlal and Khurde Ram for the offence under sections 302, 323 and 341 I.P.C. vide order dated May 28, 1990, and by the same order the application filed by the complainant to take conizance against the petitioners was rejected. He also committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar and directed the co-accused Ramlal and Khurde Ram to appear in the said court on June 18, 1990. It does not appear that the said order of the Magistrate has been challenged by the complainant of the State. (11). It further appears that after submission of challan, the complainant again approached to the higher authorities with a request to file additional charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners. (12). From the case diary, it also appears that before the charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused Ramlal and Khurda Ram, the D.I.G. Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur had also given his opinion to D.I.G., C.I.D. (C.B.), Jaipur Range that the charge-sheet be filed against the two co-accused persons, namely, Ramlal and Khurda Ram. Then, on March 31, 1990 the Supdt. of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.), Raj., Jaipur directed the Supdt. of Police, Sikar to proceed in the matter on the basis of the merits of the case. From the case diary it further appears that a letter was written to Supdt. of Police, Sikar by Supdt. of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.) on July 2, 1990 to file charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners also and to send the compliance report to him. Thereafter, there is one more letter dated July 28,1990 by Supdt. of Police C.I.D. (C.B.) Raj. Jaipur to Supdt. of Police, Sikar to the effect that the challan has already been filed against the two co-accused persons, as such, no further action was necessary to be taken on the basis of his previous letter dated July 2, 1990. Then, there is another letter by the Supdt. of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.) of Supdt. of Police, Sikar dated August 20,1990 by which he directed to file charge sheet against eight accused-petitioners and to send a compliance report. (13). On the basis of these directions given by Supdt. of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.) Raj. Jaipur, the local police again initiated proceedings against the petitioners and made attempt to get them arrested. (14). In these circumstances, the petitioners have approached before this Court with a prayer as indicated above. (15). Mr. (13). On the basis of these directions given by Supdt. of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.) Raj. Jaipur, the local police again initiated proceedings against the petitioners and made attempt to get them arrested. (14). In these circumstances, the petitioners have approached before this Court with a prayer as indicated above. (15). Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after a charge-sheet was filed against only two co-accused persons, namely, Ramlal and Khurda Ram with a specific mention that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate passed a judicial order on the application of the complainant refusing to take cognizance against the petitioners, there was hardly any occasion for the police to take further steps for re-investigation and submit a charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners without getting the aforesaid judicial order of the learned Magistrate reviewed. (16). The learned counsel further argued that if the complainant was aggrieved from the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to take cognizance against the petitioners, the remedy was available to him to file a revision petition or a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. before this court. He further argued that a charge- sheet has been filed against the co-accused persons after completion of the investigation and thereafter no further investigation has been made, as such, the question of filing additional charge-sheet against the accused persons does not arise in the absence of any additional material and that too after a judicial scrutiny and judicial order by the court of Magistrate. (17). The learned counsel also argued that further investigation or a sup-plementary charge-sheet against the co-accused could be filed under the facts and circumstance of the case only after seeking permission and satisfying the Magistrate concernded. The learned counsel also submitted that the powers under section Cr.P.C. are not arbitrary powers and directions to the concerned authority/officer to file charge-sheet against other person cannot be given once the matter was already examined earlier by the concerned authorities and then by a competent court. The learned counsel also submitted that the powers under section Cr.P.C. are not arbitrary powers and directions to the concerned authority/officer to file charge-sheet against other person cannot be given once the matter was already examined earlier by the concerned authorities and then by a competent court. The learned counsel argued that in the instant case the investigation was made by various officers of the local police as well as C.I.D. (C.B.) and all of them have arrived at a conclusion that there was false implication from the very beginning of lodging the report and there were only two co-accused, namely, Ramlal and Khurda Ram, who had participated in the incident. (18). Contrary to this, the learned counsel for the complainant and the Public Prosecutor contended that the investigating agency has a right to make further investigation under section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. (19). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that a further investigation can be made by the police, even after submission of charge-sheet against some of the accused persons, under section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. but the said powers are not arbitrary. Once a criminal case is finally investigated by the investigating agency and a charge-sheet is filed against some of the accused persons, with a clear conclusion that no prima facie involvement was made out against other accused persons and that finding is accepted by the Magistrate on the scrutiny of the entire material on record, then, the police cannot reinvestigate the matter, unless the judicial order of the Magistrate is challenged or permission is sought from the said Magistrate who had applied its mind on the facts of the case. In the instant case, no further investigation or further material was collected by the investigating agency after the submission of the charge-sheet against Ramlal & Khurdaram. (20). It is also clear from the various correspondence of the Supdt of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.) that he himself had agreed that his letter dated July 2, 1990 be not complied with as a charge-sheet was already filed against two accused persons. (21). After seeing the entire material on the record, specially the postmortem report and the order of the learned Magistrate dated May 28, 1990, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which powers under section 482 Cr. (21). After seeing the entire material on the record, specially the postmortem report and the order of the learned Magistrate dated May 28, 1990, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised by this court to stop further action of the police for filing charge-sheet against the petitioners as it is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. (22). The learned Magistrate has passed a judicial order on May 28, 1990 by which he refused to take cognizance against the petitioners on the basis of the evidence which was recorded upto that time. There is no dispute that after the said order on fresh material has been collected and no evidence has been recorded by the police; and on the basis of the same evidences, the police wants to submit a charge-sheet against the petitioners and for that purpose they are taking steps to get them arrested. If the investigating agency is allowed to make further investigation or submit a charge-sheet against the petitioners, it would be against the above judicial order of the Magistrate, which is not permissible unless permission of further investigation is sought from the Magistrate after satisfying him. Once the entire case was examined by the Magistrate, on the same evidence, the prosecution cannot be permitted to file a charge-sheet simply because the Supdt. of Police, C.I.D. (C.B.) directed the local police to file a charge-sheet against the petitioners while the same Supdt. of Police, in his letter dt. July 28, 1990 to Supdt. of Police Sikar, had agreed that no compliance was needed to his previous letter dt. July 2, 1990 as a charge-sheet was already filed against the two ca-accused persons, namely, Ramlal and Khurdaram. (23). Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, as indicated above, I am of the view that this petition should be allowed. (24). Consequently, this petition is allowed and the investigating agency is directed not to make further investigation in criminal case F.I.R. No. 82/89 dated May 24, 1989 Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar or file charge-sheet against the petitioners, except in the manner stated above.