S. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Girdhar Nath, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation. ( 2 ) BY this petition the applicant has sought for quashing of the order summoning him and 14 others on the basis of a charge-sheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as cbi) before the Special Court (CBI) at Lucknow. ( 3 ) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that CBI was authorised to investigate this case after the charge-sheets were submitted by the local police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, and that Court having taken cognizance in the matter for the purposes of commitment of the case alone is entitled to proceed with the C. B. I. charge-sheet. CBI was entrusted with the investigation by the State of U. P. There were two cross versions. One of these versions is now pending before the Court at Varanasi. The contention, therefore, is that CBI is not authorised to submit independently a charge-sheet before designated CBI Court the charge-sheet ought to have been submitted by CBI before the same Court which was seized of the case. ( 4 ) SRI Girdhar Nath, learned counsel for CBI, has challenged the above submission on the ground that CBI is an independent investigating body. It derives its authority to investigate any offence in the entire Indian territory from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Notification by the Government of U. P. was made under Section 6 of that Act and according to him, therefore, CBI is competent to prefer its own forum after concluding the investigation. He has also placed reliance upon Annexure 5 to his counter affidavit, which is a general notification by the State with regard to submission of charge-sheets by CBI in designated CBI Courts at Lucknow and Dehradun. This notification is dated 24/08/2000. On the strength of these notifications, therefore, he submits clearly that CBI is right in submitting charge-sheet at designated Court at Lucknow and the summons issued by that Court on that charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by this Court. ( 5 ) BEFORE embarking upon adjudication of these contentions, it shall be relevant to refer to few facts, which have a bearing upon the result of this application. ( 5 ) BEFORE embarking upon adjudication of these contentions, it shall be relevant to refer to few facts, which have a bearing upon the result of this application. An incident had occurred on 13-1-1998 and in that incident both sides had lodged their F. I. R. s. On 12-2-1998 local police had submitted charge-sheet in one of those F. I. R. s in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi against the applicant and others. The case was entrusted on an intervention by a Minister of State of Government of U. P. , Sri Virendra Singh, to C. B. C. I. D. C. B. C. I. D. took over the investigation on 9-3-1998, in all probability, with the permission of the Court. No charge-sheet was submitted by C. B. C. I. D. However, when bail application of one of the co-accused, Sushil Kumar Singh, came up before this Court, Hon. P. K. Jain, J. , was of opinion that in the course of investigation by C. B. C. I. D. the witness had changed the weapons. Danda, Lathi, Bhala were introduced and only three accused were found to have used the firearms in theincident. Considering all these developments and improvements during C. B. C. I. D. , investigation, he found it expedient in the interest of justice that the investigation be done by some independent agency like CBI. In pursuance to this direction by this Court the State Government entrusted the investigation of the offence to CBI. The above said order was passed by Hon. P. K. Jain J. , on 17-9-1998. CBI submitted its charge-sheet before CBI Court at Lucknow on 30/08/2000. ( 6 ) THE question that is to be gone into in this application is whether the notification by the State Government directing CBI to take up the investigation amounts to a fresh investigation or simply a further investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. Contrary to the submission, the suggestion of the learned counsel for CBI is that it shall amount to a fresh investigation and CBI is competent to prosecute these accused before its own designated Court. P. C. Contrary to the submission, the suggestion of the learned counsel for CBI is that it shall amount to a fresh investigation and CBI is competent to prosecute these accused before its own designated Court. In that regard he has cited before this Court two judgments of the Apex Court, one 1999 SCC (Cri) 397 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1765 ), (M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka) and 1999 SCC (Crl.) 393 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1028 ) (Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam.) ( 7 ) SO far first case cited in this connection is concerned, in my opinion, this case has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. This case before the Apex Court was for quashing of the subsequent F. I. R. , which pertained to the period of offence commencing from 1-8-1978 and culminated on 25-7-1995. Before this investigation was taken up, investigation was already conducted for the period commencing from 1-8-1978 to 24-8-1989. Thus, apparently the subsequent F. I. R. against that very accused was for a much larger period than the first F. I. R. and, therefore, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the subsequent F. I. R. cannot be quashed. However, it had ovserved that "we would make it clear that the investigating authority will certainly look into the earlier proceedings and the result of investigation thereunder and the submission of a b Form which was duly accepted by the competent Court while investigating into the present proceedings as well as the observations made by us in this judgment". This observation by the Apex Court, by implication, means that the subsequent investigation by and large for the period which was subject matter of the first investigation on a different F. I. R. was nothing but a re-investigation. The Apex Court did not agree to quash the subsequent F. I. R. because it had taken into its periphery period from 1989 onwards upto 1995. Thus, clearly the subject matter of the petition before the Apex Court and its judgment was based absolutely on different considerations in wholly different context. It has no bearing whatsoever on the facts and circumstances of the present case. No quashing of subsequent F. I. R. or chargesheet is sought by applicants. They only desire this summoning order based on CBI chargesheet be quashed against them. It has no bearing whatsoever on the facts and circumstances of the present case. No quashing of subsequent F. I. R. or chargesheet is sought by applicants. They only desire this summoning order based on CBI chargesheet be quashed against them. ( 8 ) AS earlier observed, the question in issue in this application hinges on the resolution of the question whether, after submission of a charge-sheet by the local police and after taking of cognizance by the concerned Court on that charge-sheet, any investigation conducted by any agency, may it be C. B. C. I. D. or CBI, would amount to fresh investigation or an investigation called further investigation, as contemplated by the provisions of Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) SO far as the second case cited by the learned counsel for CBI is concerned, in my opinion, it too has no application. This is a case, which pertains to territorial jurisdiction to try the case by a Magistrate. The High Court in this case had quashed the complaint on the ground that the Magistrate taking cognizance was not having territorial jurisdiction over the place of offence. The Apex Court was of the view that a Ist Class Magistrate has power to take cognizance of any offence whether committed in his jurisdiction or not. Therefore, it had unsettled the High Courts judgment as reported in 2000 SCC (Crl.) 47 : ( AIR 1999 SC 3499 ) (Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal ). ( 10 ) THE other case that is cited by Sri Girdhar Nath relates to an interlocutory order. According to him, order directing issuance of process is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, amenable to revisional jurisdiction. He thereby contends that this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. No-doubt the learned counsel for the applicant could have preferred a revision also, but merely because they have preferred an application undersection 482, Cr. P. C. , it cannot be gainsaid that this Court is precluded from entering into the controversy in exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. These technicalities should not come in the way of this Court in deciding this application. The question raised before this Court is of general importance and it can be gone into by the Court under this jurisdiction also. The issue, therefore, is decided accordingly. P. C. These technicalities should not come in the way of this Court in deciding this application. The question raised before this Court is of general importance and it can be gone into by the Court under this jurisdiction also. The issue, therefore, is decided accordingly. ( 11 ) EXCEPT Section 173, Cr. P. C. there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procdure under which any investigating agency can submit a charge-sheet. Section 154, Cr. P. C. empowers the police to register a case and investigate the same. Even CBI also registers a case and investigate the same under Section 154, Cr. P. C. Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. is of some importance in the facts of this case. It reads thus, "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 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 ). " Sub-section (2) marks the culmination of an investigation in the nature of submission of a charge-sheet by the police or any other agency. In the present case, as earlier pointed out, a charge-sheet was already submitted after conclusion of the investigation by the local police and cognizance was taken by the Court. In between re-investigation was handed over to C. B. C. I. D. by Government of the State. Investigation was taken over with permission of the Court. It is not known whether C. B. C. I. D. has submitted any charge-sheet in the case or not, but the order of Hon. P. K. Jain J. , referred to above, clearly refers to the conflict between the result of the investigation by the civil police and C. B. C. I. D. and that necessitated re-investigation/further investigation by CBI. It is not known whether C. B. C. I. D. has submitted any charge-sheet in the case or not, but the order of Hon. P. K. Jain J. , referred to above, clearly refers to the conflict between the result of the investigation by the civil police and C. B. C. I. D. and that necessitated re-investigation/further investigation by CBI. ( 12 ) THE only procedural law under which any investigating agency, whether it is CBI or local police or any other special agency of the State, can investigate a case is the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is no other procedural law which entitles any investigating agency to proceed with the investigation of an offence. Therefore, this submission of a second report on the conclusion of an investigation by CBI cannot be treated a fresh investigation. Re-investigation is not known to Code of Criminal Procedure. It recognises only further investigation once a charge-sheet has been submitted, by any agency, in Court. If it is not a fresh report then this cannot be submitted before the special Courts meant for trial of the cases investigated by CBI. The notifications dated 10/11/1998 and 26/03/1999 have been perused by me and I do not find any authorisation to CBI to submit the charge-sheet before its special Courts in such cases. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for CBI, he specifically referred to Annexure 5 to his counter affidavit, which is a general power conferred on CBI to submit a charge-sheet before the special Courts constituted for the trials of its investigations. Learned counsel for CBI wants his Court to read this power flowing from earlier notifications in league with this general notification for CBI. I am at a loss to suggest that I am not in agreement with the contention advanced on behalf of CBI. This is a general notification for the cases, which were exclusively investigated by CBI and no chargesheet by any other agency was submitted before it started investigation. In the present case the set of facts are quite different. We cannot lose sight of the fact nor we can close our eyes to the situation that these very offences, which were at a later stage investigated by CBI, were already taken cognizance of by a Court of law on a charge-sheet submitted by the local police. In the present case the set of facts are quite different. We cannot lose sight of the fact nor we can close our eyes to the situation that these very offences, which were at a later stage investigated by CBI, were already taken cognizance of by a Court of law on a charge-sheet submitted by the local police. In the result, it cannot be said that these investigations are first investigations and CBI is competent to present its charge-sheets before its own special Courts. In my opinion, CBI had to submit its reports after conclusion of its investigation to the Government of the State, which was competent to forward it to the Court, which had already taken cognizance of these offences before CBI was called upon to take up the investigation by State Government. Two proceedings at two different Courts for the same offence between the same parties is not permissible in law. They have to be tried at one place. C. J. M. , Varanasi, having taken cognizance first is entitled to proceed with thematter and the trial and, therefore, report submitted by CBI is required to be transferred to C. J. M. Court at Varanasi since it shall be simply a report under Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. ( 13 ) ALL the witnesses in the case belong to Varanasi and the accused also are all hailing from this very district. In the circumstances, it will be highly expedient to have this trial conducted at Varanasi. ( 14 ) IT will also be another question whether the trial should proceed on the basis of the local police challani report or the report submitted by CBI. As earlier stated, that the report submitted by CBI, in my opinion, is clearly a supplementary report in accordance with the provision of Section 173 (8), Cr. P. C. , it shall be open for the Court concerned to look into it and, if anything new is there, it can frame charges in accordance with it treating it as a supplementary report. If some new accused are also introduced in the report of CBI, the Court can take cognizance against them as well. It shall be called supplementary chargesheet and will be received in accordance with law in Varanasi Court. ( 15 ) IN the result, the prayer that the summoning order be quashed cannot be entertained. If some new accused are also introduced in the report of CBI, the Court can take cognizance against them as well. It shall be called supplementary chargesheet and will be received in accordance with law in Varanasi Court. ( 15 ) IN the result, the prayer that the summoning order be quashed cannot be entertained. However, in the interest of justice, the charge-sheet submitted by CBI at its special Court at Lucknow stand transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, before whom the earlier charge-sheet is pending for commitment. Special Judge (CBI) Lucknow, is directed to send this chargesheet to the Court of C. J. M. , Varanasi, as soon as a copy of this order is received by it. ( 16 ) WITH the above direction, this application is disposed of finally. Order accordingly. .