( 1 ) INASMUCH as both these petitions arise out of a common order passed by the learned judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, both these petitions can be disposed of together. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is assailing the common order dated 4-2-2006 passed by the learned judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur in criminal M. P. No. 1702 of 2005 and crl. M. P. No. 28 of 2006 in Crime No. 55 of 2004. Criminal Petition No. 839 of 2006 is directed against that part of the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 1702 of 2005, whereas the criminal Petition No. 933 of 2006 is directed against that part of the order passed in crl. M. P. No. 28 of 2006. ( 3 ) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. A crime was registered in Crime No. 55 of 2004 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ipc ) on the file of Alampur Police station. The petitioners are A-1 to A-4 and a-6 therein. The crime was investigated into by the then Investigating Officer, who eventually submitted a final report to the court. Before submitting the final report, it appears, the investigating officer obtained necessary permission of the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar. While things stood thus, the present investigating officer, who assumed charge of the police station consequent upon the transfer of his predecessor, who submitted the final report before the Court, pursuant to the directions given by the Superintendent of Police, mahabubnagar, filed a petition before the court seeking permission to further investigate after reopening the investigation made by his predecessor. In the meanwhile, when a notice was served upon the de facto complainant, the second respondent herein, informing him about the submission of the final report recommending for dropping of the proceedings, he filed a protest petition before the Court in Crl. M. P. No. 1702 of 2005. The petition filed by the investigating officer seeking permission for further investigation and the protest petition filed by the de facto complainant were heard together and under the impugned common order, the Court below eventually permitted the Circle Inspector of police, Alampur to re-investigate the case and file his report. It is this order that is now being assailed before this Court. It is this order that is now being assailed before this Court. ( 4 ) SRI K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners represents that the order is illegal in having permitted the investigating officer to re- investigate the case which tantamount to scrapping of the investigation done earlier and the conducting of the investigation a fresh. The learned counsel represents that such a. power is not conferred upon the investigating officer or upon the Court to direct the investigating officer to re-investigate. What is permissible under law is to further investigate the case, which means that the investigation done so far, which culminated in submitting the final report will not be scrapped. The provision germane in the context in Section 173 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short cr. P. C. /the Code ). ( 5 ) SECTION 173 Cr. P. C. reads as under: report of police officer on completion of investigation:- (1) Every investigation under this chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report a report in the form prescribed by the state Government, stating- (a) the name of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. (ii) The officer shall communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Sec. 158, the report shall; in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer-in-charge of the police station to make further investigation. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Sec. 158, the report shall; in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer-in-charge of the police station to make further investigation. (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on is bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the magistrate along with the report- (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statement recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witness. (6) It the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that it disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate the part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of thedocuments referred to in sub-section (5 ). (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, 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 ). ( 6 ) A perusal of the said provision shows that the investigating officer, on completion of investigation, shall submit a report before a competent Magistrate tin the prescribed proforma if he is of the opinion that there is a sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to forward the accused to a Magistrate so as to try him, in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section 2 to 5 of Section 173 of the Code. If forany reason, the investigating off icer finds that there is no sufficient evidence to try the accused, and recommends thereby for dropping of further proceedings it would nonetheless be a report submitted by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 173 Cr. P. C. In other-words, the report submitted by the investigating officer under Section 173 cr. P. C. may be a report recommending to try the accused or may be a report recommending for dropping of the proceedings which in common parlance is called as a final report. Sub-section 8 is relevant. Under sub-section 8, the investigating officer is not precluded from conducting further investigation in spite of an offence even after submitting a report, that report is either a report recommending for action or trial or a report recommending for dropping of the proceedings. From the provision extracted hereinabove, it is not discernable that the investigating officer, who seeks to further investigate the case after submitting his case, is obliged to obtain necessary permission from the Magistrate having jurisdiction in regard thereto. However, for smooth functioning of the criminal justice system, the Apex Court observed that it is expedient to have obtained such permission by the investigating officer, who seeks to further investigate in the matter after having submitted his report under sub-section 2 of section 173 of the Code. ( 7 ) THE grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the Court upon considering the contentious of both parties directed, the Circle inspector of Police to re-investigate the case and file the report. The distinction between further investigation and re-investigation is sought to be highlighted by the learned counsel with reference to the judgment of the apex Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of kerala and others but the judgment shows otherwise. The distinction between further investigation and re-investigation is sought to be highlighted by the learned counsel with reference to the judgment of the apex Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of kerala and others but the judgment shows otherwise. That was a case where the Central bureau of Investigation conducted investigation in the M and F case and submitted its final report under Sec. 173 (2) of the Code recommending for dropping of the proceedings against the accused. Having been not satisfied with the report filed by the central Bureau of Investigation, the State government issued proceedings enabling the state police to further investigate "the case. A serious exception has taken by the apex Court in the said context inasmuch as it would tantamount to scrapping of the investigation done by the Central Bureau investigation and directing a fresh investigation intimated by the state agency. That is not the case here. It is no doubt true, due to mistake or inadvertence without knowing the implication of the expression "re-investigation", the learned Magistrate underthe impugned order, directed the Circle inspector of police to re-investigate when it was specifically prayed for "further investigation". Neither the provisions of the code nor any other provisions elsewhere can preclude the investigating officer to further investigate into the matter and in the event, he obtains further evidence either oral or documentary evidence, the investigating officer is entitled to forward his report under sub-section 2 of Section 173 of the Code notwithstanding the fact that he had earlier submitted a report. Whatever may be the reason that prompted the investigating officer 1. 1998 (2) ALT (Crl.) 76 (SC) = (1998) 5 SCC 223 . to seek permission of the Court, the fact remains that he seeks permission of the court for further investigation into the matter. The contention that there is nothing on record to show-that on account of some material gathered by him, he wanted toconduct further investigation. I am afraid I cannot accept the said contention. De hors further investigation, the question of obtaining evidence will not arise. The controversy can be set at naught if the impugned order is modified by deleting the expression "re-investigate" and substitute the same with the expression "further investigation , albeit with that expressions mean the same. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, the request of the petitionerto quash the proceedings cannot be considered. The controversy can be set at naught if the impugned order is modified by deleting the expression "re-investigate" and substitute the same with the expression "further investigation , albeit with that expressions mean the same. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, the request of the petitionerto quash the proceedings cannot be considered. However, the impugned order is hereby modified by permitting the investigating officer to further investigate the case, by deleting the expression used in the order in its operative portion as "re- investigate" and substituting the same with the expression "further investigate". Accordingly, The Criminal petitions are disposed of.