JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 16.3.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Churu on a final report submitted by the police arising out of FIR No. 295 dated 15.8.2003 P.S. Kotwali, Churu, whereby the trial Court on a protest petition by complainant as also on a request of Superintendent of Police, Churu seeking permission for further investigation in the matter sent the matter for further investigation to the police. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the police has filed a negative final report, then it is not open to the trial Court to direct for re-investigation. He has relied on a judgment of this Court in S.K. Kothari v. State of Rajasthan and Ann reported in 2004(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 136 , wherein this Court held that investigation on the complaint filed by the second respondent is a gross abuse of process of Court. The investigation is at the instance of a person who has been found guilty of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by misusing the official position and has been terminated from the service. The allegation of with-holding of gratuity amount is a matter of calculation, in accordance with the provisions of law. Even on going through the allegation made in the FIR no offence under section 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code is made out. There is absolutely no material even prima facie, to array any of the officers of the Bank as accused. The learned Magistrate directing further investigation has failed to address himself to the crucial question as to whether the allegation in the complaint coupled with other materials on record justifies an investigation by the police. On these premises, the order directing further investigation was quashed. 3. It is relevant, to mention here that earlier, the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of very same FIR i.e. FIR No. 295 dated 15.8.2003 P.S. Kotwali, Churu, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Petition No. 305/04. This Court vide order dated 13.5.2004 after having considered the material on record, held that the question of quashing of FIR does not at all arise, and the petition being wholly misconceived was dismissed. 4. Petition No. 305/04. This Court vide order dated 13.5.2004 after having considered the material on record, held that the question of quashing of FIR does not at all arise, and the petition being wholly misconceived was dismissed. 4. In the instant case, the complainant-Smt. Banoo W/o Mohideen Khan, lodged first information report No.295 dated 15.8.2003 inter alia, alleging therein that she contracted Nikah (marriage) with Mohideen on 21.6.1998. In marriage, her parents gave dowry articles including jewellery which were collected by her husband and other family members of in-laws and they took the dowry articles to Rajpura. She was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, as also persistent demand of Hero Honda Motor Cycle and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was raised. Even efforts were made to cause burn injuries by pouring Kerosene on her, and ultimately she was turned out from the matrimonial home and dowry articles which were entrusted to the husband and other members of in-laws family named in the FIR, were not returned to her, and were misappropriated. The police registered a case under section 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code and ultimately the police filed negative final report, on which the complainant filed protest petition. In the meantime, on a complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Churn requested the trial Court to allow the police for further investigation in A he matter. On the request of the Superintendent of Police as also on protest petition, the trial Court directed re-investigation in the matter. 5. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that 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-secs. (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). 6. (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). 6. In Kashi Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ann, 1995 Cr:L.R. (Raj.) 86 , this Court held that the investigation is the field which is exclusively left for the investigating agency and, therefore, the investigating agency cannot be directed to submit the challan, but, however, the investigating agency can be directed to further investigate the matter on certain points. 7. In Shri Bhagwana Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1999 Cr.L.J. 3661 (SC) : 1999 Cr. L.R. (SC) 441 , the Apex Court held that power of the Police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct. further investigation. It was further held by the apex Court that the power of the Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. 8. In Shri Niwas v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2002(1) R.Cr.D. 419 (Raj.) , this Court held that direction for further investigation would not result in failure of justice. 9. In Union Public Service Commission v. Papaiah and Ors., 1997 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4636 : 1997 Cr. L.R. (SC) 700 ..Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "The appellant had communicated to the Director, CBI certain defects in the investigation on 23.1.1995 and had pointed out as many as six shortcomings necessitating reinvestigation but the CBI did not bring that fact of the notice of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate while submitting the final report on 24.2.1995 before the Magistrate decided to accept the final report submitted by the CBI and close the file on 16.3.1995. It was, to say the least, improper on the part of the Investigating Officer of the CBI to have withheld a vital document dated 23.1.1995, addressed to the Director, CBI which communication in our view was in the nature of a "protest petition", from the learned Magistrate while resubmitting the report on 24.2.1995. In all fairness, the investigating agency should have brought that communication to the notice of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before resubmitting the final report for its acceptance. The withholding of vital information from the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while resubmitting the final report along with various documents on 24.2.1995, for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, has created a doubt in our minds about the fairness on the part of the Investigating Officer while undertaking the investigations. Had the contents of the communication of the appellant dated 23.1.1995 been brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, the possibility that he may not have agreed to drop the proceedings cannot be ruled out. This 'lapse', deliberate or inadvertent, also renders the order of 16.3.1995 bad. 10. The appellant brought the contents of its communication dated 23.1.1995 to the notice of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate through its Misc. Petition No. 2040 of 1995 seeking "reinvestigation" but the learned Magistrate, rejected the petition vide order dated 4.11.1995 observing that "rightly or wrongly that Court had passed an order and it had no power to review the earlier order". Here.again the learned Magistrate fell into an error. He was not required to "review" his order. He could have ordered "further investigation" into the case. It appears that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate overlooked the, provisions of Section 173(8) which have been enacted to take care of such like situation also." 11. It was also observed by the apex Court that "the Magistrate could, thus in exercise of the powers under section 173(8), Criminal Procedure Code direct the CBI to "further investigate" the case and collect further evidence keeping in view the objections raised by the appellant to the investigation and the 'new' report to be submitted by the Investigating Officer would be governed by sub-secs. (2) to (6) of Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code The learned Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law and his order dated 4.11.1995 cannot be sustained ....." 12. (2) to (6) of Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code The learned Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law and his order dated 4.11.1995 cannot be sustained ....." 12. It was further observed by the Apex Court that "Besides the learned Sessions Judge also failed to consider the effect of withholding by the investigating agency of the "objections" of the appellant contained in its communication dated 23.1.1995 at the time of resubmission of the closure report in February 1995. The learned Sessions Judge, thus, failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction properly and his order dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant in the established facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained." 13. It is settled law that inherent powers of this Court under section 482Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised very sparingly and consciously when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the non-exercise of such power would result in manifest injustice, or would be the abuse of the process of the Court. 14. The judgment in S.K. Kothari's case (supra) turns on its own facts and it is based on altogether different facts. In the instant case, the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of very same FIR which was dismissed on 13.5.2004, and the Court held that the question of quashing of FIR does not at all arise and the petition was found to be wholly misconceived and was. dismissed. By a successive petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of order directing further investigation. There is nothing to preclude the Magistrate to order for further investigation. On the contrary, sub-section (8) of Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code empowers the police to further investigate the matter and therefore, the order directing further investigation, at the request of police or even otherwise at the request of complainant on protest petition, cannot be said to be erroneous. At any rate, the order impugned would not result in manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the Court.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******