Judgment Amar Sir Singh Gill, J. 1. By means of this petition under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. the petitioner seeks setting aside the order dated 10-1-2000. Annexure P-6. passed by Additional Sessions Judge (1) Bhiwani and further praying for restraining the police to initiate fresh investigation in FIR No.324, dated 12-11-1997. Police Station Civil Lines. Bhiwani under Sections 302 and 216 read with Sec.34 I. P. C. and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 12-11-1997, an information was received in Police Station Civil Lines. Bhiwani that Dr. Raman Bhandari was lying on the road in a bleeding condition and it appeared that some unknown vehicle had knocked him to death on the road leading to Jhankar Hotel at Bhiwani. The police rushed to the scene and conducted the proceedings under Sec.174 of Cr. P. C. intially for offence under Sec.304 I. P. C. However. subsequent to the postmortem examination when it was revealed that Dr. Raman Bhandari died of a gun shot injury and a bullet was removed form his dead body offence was changed to 302 I. P. C. on 13-11-1997. The investigation was taken up by the local police. However. Dr. Laj Bhandari, widow of Dr. Raman Bhandari being not satisfied with the progress of the investigation filed a Cr1. Writ Petition No.193 of 1998 in this Court which was disposed of by an order dated 13-2-1998 with the following directions: Disposed of with directions to the respondents No.2 and 3 to complete the investigation of FIR No.324 dated 12-11-1997 within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order as the grouse of the petitioner is that the police is sitting tight over the matter. Copy of the order be sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani for compliance. Subsequently the police sought extension of time from this Court by filling an affidavit on 25-11- 1998 explaining reasons for non-completion of the investigation as per directions of this Court, which was granted by this Court. 3. Dr. Laj Bhandari filed another Cr1. Misc. No.2251-M of 1999 in this Court seeking investigation by an agency like C. B. I. being not satisfied with the investigation by the local police. 3. Dr. Laj Bhandari filed another Cr1. Misc. No.2251-M of 1999 in this Court seeking investigation by an agency like C. B. I. being not satisfied with the investigation by the local police. On notice in the said petition, the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani who was monitoring the investigation of the case and his predecessor also filed separate affidavits/replies in this Court supported by documents including the disclosure statements of the accused involved in this case besides claiming that Dr. Laj Bhandari, her relations and some members of All India Medical Association did not co-operate in the investigation despite they were issued notices. Copies of these affidavits/replies are annexed with this petition as Annexures P-i and P-2. The said petition bearing No.2251-M of 1999 was disposed of by this Court on 14-9-1999 observing mainly inter alia that since the police has already submitted a report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. and the accused are facing trial for the murder of Dr. Raman Bhandari it was open for the Investigating Officer to initiate further investigation by complying with the provisions of Sec.173 (8) of Cr. P. C. Learned Judge relied mainly on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar V/s. TAC Sardana and observed as under: Since the matter is till at trial stage it is always open to the petitioner or the investigating agency to seek the permission of the Magistrate to further probe into the matter if there are strong unexceptionable material showing the involvement of any other person in the commission of the crime. 4. Subsequently after the aforesaid decision of this Court. Dr. Laj Bhandari filed an application to the SHO, Civil Lines. Bhiwani requesting him to prove and bring out the facts in view of the order passed by Honble High Court on 10-12-1999 since she was not fully satisfied by the charge-sheet filed before the Magistrate and the case may kindly be reinvestigated. The SHO, Police Station, Civil Lines. Bhiwani filed an application dated 7-1-2000 before the trial Court seeking permission for re investigation of this case so the truth may come out in the case. 5. Learned trial Court on the said application of the police, passed the impugned order on 10-1- 2000. Annexure P-6 allowing the application and granting necessary permission to the police for conducting further investigation of this case. 5. Learned trial Court on the said application of the police, passed the impugned order on 10-1- 2000. Annexure P-6 allowing the application and granting necessary permission to the police for conducting further investigation of this case. The trial Court also stayed the pending trial against the accused persons. This order of the trial Court is sought to be quashed in this petition. 6. It has mainly been cod tended by the petitioner that he is being involved in this case at the behest of the present Chief Minister Sh. O. P. Chautala who is arch political rival of Shri Bansi Lal, former Chief Minister of the State and father of the petitioner. It has been highlighted in the petition that during the last Parliamentary Elections the petitioner contested against Shri Ajay Singh Chautala who is the son of the present Chief Minister Sh. O. P. Chautala. Dr. Laj Bhandari and other members of her family had been actively supporting Shri Ajay Singh Chautala. The petitioner had also filed an election petition against the election of Sh. Ajay Singh Chautala. M. P. pertaining to the election held on 5-2-1999. Earlier to this the petitioner had defeated him from the same constituency. After Sh. Ajay Singh Chautala, who was elected as Member of Parliament in the elections held on 5-2-1999, the petitioner members of his family other relations and the active supporters of the petitioner are being harassed because of the political rivalry and old enemity between the families of the petitioner and the present Chief Minister. In the Assembly Election held in the year 1972. Shri Devi Lal, father of the present Chief Minister had contested the election against the father of the petitioner and Shri Devi Lal was defeated. Ever since Shri Devi Lal and his son Shri Om Prakash Chautala developed enmity, which is not confined only to political rivalry. Shri Devi Lal became the Chief Minister of Haryana in the year 1977 and thereafter many false criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, his father and his close associates in the State of Haryana. Shri Bansi Lal was handcuffed in the Court premises despite the fact that he not only remained the Chief Minister of the State but was also a former Defence Minister in the Union Cabinet. Various criminal cases were registered against the petitioners family and some of them FIR No.148 dated 12-11-1989. Shri Bansi Lal was handcuffed in the Court premises despite the fact that he not only remained the Chief Minister of the State but was also a former Defence Minister in the Union Cabinet. Various criminal cases were registered against the petitioners family and some of them FIR No.148 dated 12-11-1989. Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani against the petitioner, his father Sh. Bansi Lal and another family members under Sections 323/506/452 I. P. C.498 of the same date under Secs. 148/302/307/149/427 read with Sections 24,57 and 59 of the Indian Arms Act.1959 against the petitioners father Sh. Bansi Lal his brother and some other persons and 342. dated 1-10-1999, under Sections 409/420/467/ 468/471 and 120-B. I. P. C. read with Sec.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and his father in Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani. The petitioner his father and co-accused have since been acquitted in all the cases mentioned above but for the last case which was registered on 1-10-1999, and is pending in which the petitioner and his father are on anticipatory bail. 7. It has further been contended that in the earlier petition filed by Dr. Laj Bhandari she did not name any person except saying that the different (indifferent?) attitude of Haryanats police in this case was on account of the reason that the person behind the crime was some VVIP connected with the higher-ups in the present Haryana Government. She also filed an affidavit dated 18-5-1999 which was duly considered by this Court while disposing of the earlier petition by order dated 14-9- 1999. It is also submitted that the Investigating Agency filed two separate affidavits/replies; one by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani and the other by Superintendent of Police. Faridabad in the earlier petition filed by Dr. Laj Bhandari who had given details of investigation on the basis of which accused facing trial were duly connected with the crime and no one else was involved in this case. Lastly it has been submitted that neither Dr. Laj Bhandari nor the S. H. O. Police Station. Civil Lines, Bhiwani in their applications referred to any evidence coming to their knowledge which could meet the observations of this court in the order dated 14-9-1999 in Cr1. Misc. Lastly it has been submitted that neither Dr. Laj Bhandari nor the S. H. O. Police Station. Civil Lines, Bhiwani in their applications referred to any evidence coming to their knowledge which could meet the observations of this court in the order dated 14-9-1999 in Cr1. Misc. No 2251-M of 1999 where it has been specifically observed that further investigation can be taken up if there is strong unexceptionable material showing the involvement of any other person the commission of crime which is totally absent in the application moved by the S. H. O before the trial Court and the trail Court even though was fully aware of the observations of this Court in the aforesaid order it could not have passed the impugned order, Annexure P-6, following the police to further investigate the matter. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. There is no scope to give any other meaning but for the one conveyed in the provisions i. e. Sec.173 (8) of the Cr. P. C. itself which read as under: 173 (8):- 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, whereupon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence oral, or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report 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 ). It is no doubt true that earlier to the addition of sub-section (8) to Sec.173, a report Submitted under Sec.173 (2) Cr. P. C. was normally the. end of the investigation. However, even after the submission of such a report by the in-charge of the Police Station, instances are not rare that the police comes across some fresh evidence which has a direct bearing on the crime and it is in the interest of justice that the Police Officer should be allowed to investigate further in order to collect more evidence and send it to the Magistrate. It is in the wake of such unforeseen circumstances that the police can be permitted to further investigate the crime in respect of which already a report has been submitted to the Magistrate. Even in the cases where the Investigating Officer submits a final report i. e. for cancellation of the FIR and discharge of the accused, may be on misunderstanding of the material discovered during the investigation, and if subsequently on receipt of appropriate directions from his superior, the Police Officer can file additional chargesheet and even the accused having found not guilty under Sec.173 (2) can be prosecuted on supplementary report under Sec.173 (8) Cr. P. C. 9 A bare reading of sub-section (8) of Sec.173 clarifies that this subsection gives recognition to an unqualified power. It cannot be read as importing a prohibition. Any other interpretation that the Magistrate can prohibit further investigation would be to go against the tenor and expressed intent of the section. It is no doubt true that the facts disclosed in the petition sufficiently support the apprehension of the petitioner that he can be the victim of political bias in view of the pending political hostilities between these two rival groups in the State. However, as already absolved by this court in its order dated 14-9-1999, that if there is unexceptionable material evidence available in respect of the same crime involving a person other than the accused already named for the crime further investigation can be gone into. But to say that if no such evidence is available even before the Investigating Agency is allowed to probe into the allegations made by Dr. Laj Bhandari it is not open to this Court to shun or shut further investigation as allowed by the trial Court vide the impugned order in this case. It is however manifestly indicated from the facts of the case and the material brought on the record that admittedly Dr. Laj Bhandari did not name the petitioner as possibly involved in the murder of her husband in the first petition filed by her in this Court which was disposed of by this Court directing the completion of the investigation, within six months from the date of order. Even in the subsequent petition filed by Dr. Laj Bhandari did not name the petitioner as possibly involved in the murder of her husband in the first petition filed by her in this Court which was disposed of by this Court directing the completion of the investigation, within six months from the date of order. Even in the subsequent petition filed by Dr. Laj Bhandari there was no such disclosure and it was during the pendency of the said petition an application alongwith affidavit dated 18-5-1999 was filed by Dr. Laj Bhandari wherein she had shown suspicion against the present petitioner alleging that crime was committed at his behest. To support her suspicion she has mainly highlighted that after the petitioner became Member of Parliament his attitude towards her husband Dr. Raman Bhandari changed as he started directing him to attend to his calls so also that the vacant space in front of his clinic developed by the deceased was sought to be removed being encroachment by the Municipal Committee and the PWD authorities. This Court while disposing of the second petition filed by Dr. Laj Bhandari had considered her affidavit referred to above as well. It would also be useful to note here that in the said petition. Dr. Laj Bhandari sought the transfer of the investigation to the agency like C. B. I. 10. It is not thus denied that after the murder of Dr. Raman Bhandari on 12-11-1997. Dr. Laj Bhandari for the first time showed her suspicious against the petitioner in her affidavit dated 18- 51999. All along she has not named the petitioner in any manner involved in the murder of her husband. In the circumstances while this Court is not inclined to set aside the order passed by the trial Court allowing further investigation it reiterates the observations made in the earlier order dated 14-9-1999. 11. The petitioner has shown strong apprehensions against opposite party No.2 Shri Liak Ram. Superintendent of Police Bhiwani who has been posted by the present Government with oblique motive as he has very good equation with the present Chief Minister and his son Shri Ajay Singh Chautala. M. P. Besides Shri Liak Ram was not accommodated by Shri Banshi Lal. Father of the petitioner during his Chief Minister-ship by not giving him important assignment. Superintendent of Police Bhiwani who has been posted by the present Government with oblique motive as he has very good equation with the present Chief Minister and his son Shri Ajay Singh Chautala. M. P. Besides Shri Liak Ram was not accommodated by Shri Banshi Lal. Father of the petitioner during his Chief Minister-ship by not giving him important assignment. He had also approached the petitioner for helping him in getting the posting as Superintendent of Police of a District of his choice a number of times it is further claimed that Sh. Laik Ram. S. P. was openly claiming in the meetings of the police officials that he would set right the petitioner his father arid other members of his family and even started harassing the petitioner his father and other supporters. To cite an example it is submitted that Sh. Bansi Lal had undergone open heart surgery on 2-11-1999 at All India Institute of Medical Science. New Delhi as he was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge. Bhiwani with a further direction to join the investigation. Shri Liak Ram. S. P. knowing fully well that Shri Bansi Lal was not able to join the investigation in view of his health condition he sent a roque to Shri Bansi Lal on 9-12-1999 for joining the investigation at Bhiwani on 14-12-1999. After his discharge from the hospital. Shri Bansi Lal contacted the Investigating Officer on 1st 2nd 3rd January.2000 but Shri Liak Ram. S. P. did not allowing him to join the investigation and Shri Bansi Lal had to approach the Sessions Court at Bhiwani with such a complaint and even showed his willingness to joint the investigation. It is further claimed that Shri Liak Ram, S. P. was harassing the supporters of Shri Bansi Lal because of the then ensuing Assembly Elections, which were to be held on 22-2-2000 at the behest of the present Chief Minister Shri Om Prakash Chautala. 12. In view of the circumstances and to dispel apprehensions of the petitioner and in the interest of fair investigation under the impugned order. Shri Liak Ram. S. P. Bhiwani is not to be associated with the further investigation of this case. 13. In the light of the facts and circumstances referred to above order dated 10-1-2000. Annexure P-5, passed by the trial Court under Sec.173 (8) of Cr. Shri Liak Ram. S. P. Bhiwani is not to be associated with the further investigation of this case. 13. In the light of the facts and circumstances referred to above order dated 10-1-2000. Annexure P-5, passed by the trial Court under Sec.173 (8) of Cr. P. C. does not suffer from any legal infirmity and as such relief sought in this petition is declined. It is however directed that respondent No.2 Shri Liak Ram. S. P. Bhiwani shall not be associated in the further investigation of the case under the impugned order. Petition dismissed with certain directions.1. AIR 1980 SC 326.