Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by C.J.M. Gaya in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 218 of 2003. G.R. No. 2166 of 2003 pending in the court of Sri S.D. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya thereby and thereunder cognizance under Sec. 306 I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioner. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan lodged by one Ram Gobind Sharma, aforesaid Kotwali P.S. was registered against the petitioner and others under Sec. 302/ 428/34 of the I.P.C. The allegation was with respect to commission of murder of daughter of the informant. The police after investigation submitted final report against all the accused persons including this petitioner is mistake of fact. The report was submitted in the court of C.J.M. vide final report no. 47 of 2005 dated 26.4.2005. Thereafter, again, on the direction of the I.G. (Police) on the same material submitted chargesheet against this petitioner only on 30.9.2006 vide report no. 205 of 2006. The learned C.J.M. vide impugned order while accepting the final report against three persons took cognizance against this petitioner on the basis of supplementary chargesheet. 4. The only question to be answered in this case is that as to whether a person can be chargesheeted on the same material upon which earlier final report has already been submitted in the court. 5. Power of submission of supplementary order/subsequent chargesheet by the police even after submission a report under sub section (2) of Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. is well recognized and this has been incorporated under sub section (8) of the Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. However, once the report under sub-section (2) is filed by the investigating agency he cannot file subsequent chargesheet on the basis of same and state materials. There must be some fresh facts and material to justify filing of subsequent or revised chargesheet. 6. This question has come for consideration in several decisions. However, it would be suffix to cite one decision of this Court reported in 1994 PUR (2) 96 (D.B.), Yamuna Pathak Vs. State of Bihar. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment it has been held as follows: "9. From a simple perusal of the above provision of law. 6. This question has come for consideration in several decisions. However, it would be suffix to cite one decision of this Court reported in 1994 PUR (2) 96 (D.B.), Yamuna Pathak Vs. State of Bihar. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment it has been held as follows: "9. From a simple perusal of the above provision of law. It is crystal clear that a supplementary charge-sheet can legally be submitted provided "further investigation" in respect of an offence after the first charge-sheet is submitted is held and upon such further investigation, "further evidence" is obtained. Thus a supplementary charge-sheet can be submitted in respect of additional evidence collected in course of further investigation held which could not be available in course of the investigation held earlier. 10. In the instant case, no further investigation appears to have been held and no fresh or additional evidence has been obtained which was not available during the investigation held before submission of the chargesheet No. 19 dated 17.3.1985. What has been done in reconsideration of the evidence which was already before the investigating agency prior to submitting the first chargesheet No. 19 dated 17.3.1985 after consideration of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had discharged petitioner Yamuna Pathak by his order dated 6.7.1985." 7. Exactly the position is same in this case. The police after submission of final report under sub section (2) of Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. filed subsequent chargesheet on the same material without collecting fresh and further material on the basis of direction of the superior police officer. This is not permissible in law. 8. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances as well as legal position, this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.