Judgment R. P. SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. Perused the impugned order dated 28-7-1992 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tijara, whereby on an application submitted by the SHO, Police Station Bhiwadi through the Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate ordered for sending back the final report to the Investigation Officer for further investigation. ( 2 ) IT appears that on the criminal complaint filed by Kamru, hich was sent under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. by the learned Magistrate, Crime No. 14/91 was registered at Police Station Tijara, for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC against the accused petitioner. However, the police after investigation submitted Final Report on 29th June, 1991. The learned Magistrate issued notices to the complainant and many opportunities were sought on behalf of the complainant for filing the protest petition as such no final order was passed on the Final Report. It further appears that, thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Alwar directed the SHO, police Station, Tijara to conduct further investigation in the case, whereupon the SHO through the Additional public prosecutor submitted an application dated 28-7-1992, which was allowed and the learned Magistrate returned the final report with case diary and passed the impugned order. ( 3 ) THE contention of Shri. Mathur, is that once the SHO after investigation submitted his final report; the learned Magistrate ought to have passed either accepting the Final Report or taking cognizance of the offence, but on the other hand the matter remained undisposed of for a period of more than one year and now the impugned order for sending back the case diary to the Investigation Officer would result in unnecessary harassment to the accused-petitioner, which is tantamount to abuse of process of the Court and as such, the impugned order be quashed and the SHO be directed not to reinvestigate or further investigate the matter. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this petition and asserted that under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. the Investigation Officer is not precluded from conduction further investigation and since no final order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the final report, the impugned order is perfectly justified, proper and legal. ( 5 ) I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. A bare look to sub-Section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. the Investigation Officer is not precluded from conduction further investigation and since no final order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the final report, the impugned order is perfectly justified, proper and legal. ( 5 ) I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. A bare look to sub-Section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. indicates that after a report under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. has been submitted to the Magistrate, further investigation in respect of an offence is not precluded and the Investigation Officer is legally entitled and authorised to submit supplementary charge-sheet along with additional oral and documentary evidence collected by him. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate has neither accepted the final report nor taken cognizance of any offence. In the meanwhile the Investigation Officer submitted an application requesting the Magistrate to send back the case diary to enable him to conduct further investigation. The learned Magistrate has, therefore, not committed any illegality in sending back the case diary and final report and the impugned order does not amount to any abuse of process of the Court. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the accused petitioner has filed this petition and prayed to restrain the Investigation Officer to conduct further investigation in the matter, which is legally not permissible. The matter as to whether there exist sufficient and valid grounds for further investigation is entirely for the consideration of the Investigation Officer or his Superior Officer and the Court cannot give any direction restraining the Investigation Officer from conducting further investigation. However, if the Investigation Officer after procuring additional evidence is satisfied that there exists sufficient and valid ground for the arrest of the accused-petitioner, then in that contingency he shall intimate the accused-petitioner about it as least a week prior of his intended arrest, so that the latter may seek his appropriate remedy in accordance with law. ( 7 ) WITH these observations this petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is hereby dismissed. The record of the lower court be sent back forthwith. Petition dismissed.