S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE present case arising out of an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2006 passed by learned Additional District and sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South), affirming the order dated 27. 02. 2003 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, alipore, in connection with Canning Police Station Case No. 160 dated 25. 12. 2000 under section 302/34/120b of Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act, (corresponding to BGR No. 4965/2000) pending before the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South ). ( 2 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows: a complaint was lodged by one, Chittaranjan Mirdha, with the Inspector-in-Charge of Canning Police Station alleging that on 25th December, 2000 at about 12-00 noon when his son, Dipak Mirdha, was in a saloon under the name and style, "sundaram" at Canning Bus Stand, he suddenly sustained a gunshot injury on his person. Upon hearing the sound of such gunshot and the chaos, which resulted thereby the third son of the complainant, rushed to the spot. With the help of others, the victim was shifted to Canning hospital where he was declared dead. There was previous enmity between the victim and one, Azimuddin Laskar of Basanti Police Station and Kartick bose of Canning P. S. over the decoration of Canning Dock ferry-ghat. In 1999, one Anil Thakur, was murdered by some anti-social elements near canning Hospital. Arnab Roy, Pradhan of Dighirpar Gram Panchayat, falsely implicated the complainant's son, being the victim, in connection with that murder. ( 3 ) ON the basis of such complaint, Canning P. S. Case No. 160 dated 25. 12. 2000 was started. After completion of investigation, the Investigating authority submitted chargesheet No. 141 dated 29. 07. 2001 implicating animesh Haider @ Kuche, Rajesh Dhali, Selim Gayen, Rafique Dhali and rajab Ali @ Daktar as accused persons. On the basis of such chargesheet, the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, by order dated 31. 08. 2001 took cognizance of the offences under section 302/34/ 120b of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act and directed issuance of warrants of arrest against the absconding accused persons. ( 4 ) AFTER about 27 months i. e. , on 27. 02. 08. 2001 took cognizance of the offences under section 302/34/ 120b of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act and directed issuance of warrants of arrest against the absconding accused persons. ( 4 ) AFTER about 27 months i. e. , on 27. 02. 2003, the de facto complainant filed an application before the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate praying for direction upon the D. I. G. , C. I. D. , West Bengal to cause further investigation in terms of section 173 (8) of the Criminal procedure Code. ( 5 ) LEARNED Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, by order dated 27. 02. 2003 in response to such prayer directed the D. I. G. , C. I. D. , West bengal, to investigate the aforesaid case under section 173 (8) of the Criminal procedure Code. ( 6 ) THE Learned Court by order dated 09. 06. 2005 directed issuance of warrant of arrest against the present petitioner. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order dated 27. 02. 2003 and order dated 09. 06. 2005, the petitioner moved a revisional application being Criminal motion No. 484 of 2005 before the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore. Learned 4th Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore by order dated 13. 03. 2006 rejected the application on the ground that there was no scope to re-open the matter in view of an earlier application filed by one, Arnab Roy, against the said order dated 27. 02. 2003 and disposal of the said application being criminal Motion No. 100/03 by order dated 21. 01. 2004. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner referring to the backdrop of the present case submitted that admittedly after completion of investigation of the case under reference police authority submitted chargesheet for the offences which include a serious offence under section 302 of Indian Penal code. The learned Court on receipt of the said chargesheet took cognizance of the offences. It could be that the FIR named accused persons were left out in the chargesheet whereas few others were implicated. ( 9 ) IT cannot be denied that in such a situation, it was the duty on the part of the learned Court to issue notice upon the de facto complainant and give him an opportunity of hearing. It could be that the FIR named accused persons were left out in the chargesheet whereas few others were implicated. ( 9 ) IT cannot be denied that in such a situation, it was the duty on the part of the learned Court to issue notice upon the de facto complainant and give him an opportunity of hearing. The learned Court ought to have given the de facto complainant a chance to have his say over the result of investigation. Curiously enough, that was not done. The learned Court, however, in response to a subsequent prayer made by the de facto complainant directed further investigation and that too, by an Officer, not below the rank of a inspector to be selected by the D. I. G. , C. I. D. , West Bengal. ( 10 ) IT appears from the materials available on record that such order directing further investigation in response to the prayer of the de facto complainant was challenged by filing a revisional application. But the said revisional application failed. The matter was sought to be assailed thereafter by filing an application before the High Court, which, as it appeared from the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, was, subsequently, not pressed. The petitioner in the earlier revisional application was none other than one, Arnab Roy, who is one of the F. I. R. named accused persons. ( 11 ) THE applicant in the present case is one, Dulal Ghosh. The nature of the grievances, as ventilated on behalf of the present applicant, are certainly, substantially, if not entirely, the same as those raised in the earlier revisional application. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the dismissal of the earlier revisional application cannot restrain the present petitioner from raising the points as mentioned in the application. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the private opposite party submitted that there is no reason as to why the learned Court even after taking of cognizance cannot direct further investigation when the learned court finds that the allegations made in the F. I. R. have not been properly taken care of nor properly investigated. ( 14 ) ATTENTION of the Court was invited to section 173 (8) of Criminal procedure Code by learned Counsel for the State. ( 14 ) ATTENTION of the Court was invited to section 173 (8) of Criminal procedure Code by learned Counsel for the State. Section 173 (8) of the criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: "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 ). " ( 15 ) REFERENCE was made to the decision of the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Istakuddin Mondal @ Haradhan Mondal vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in 2005 (1) C Cr. LR (Cal) 182, in support of the contention that even on a prayer of a de facto complainant, the Court can direct further investigation by the police after taking of cognizance. ( 16 ) IT is true, in the case of Ranm Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi administration), reported in 1979 SCC (Cri) 479, it was held that there is no provision prohibiting the police from going ahead with investigation into the fresh facts coming to light after submission of report under section 173 (1) or after taking of cognizance by the Magistrate. ( 17 ) THIS legal proposition found further support from the decision in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha maharaj reported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047. ( 18 ) SUCH power of the police to conduct further investigation after laying the final report was also recognised in the case of Central Bureau of investigation vs. E. S. Pai and Anr. , reported in 2002 SCC (Cr) 950, as well as in the case of Rajesh and Ors. vs. Ramdeo and Ors. , reported in 2003 SCC (Cri)1054. Such a legal proposition derived further inspiration from the decision in the case of Union Public Service Commission vs. S. Papaiah and Ors. , reported in 1997 C Cr. LR (SC) 359. , reported in 2002 SCC (Cr) 950, as well as in the case of Rajesh and Ors. vs. Ramdeo and Ors. , reported in 2003 SCC (Cri)1054. Such a legal proposition derived further inspiration from the decision in the case of Union Public Service Commission vs. S. Papaiah and Ors. , reported in 1997 C Cr. LR (SC) 359. ( 19 ) THE language of section 173 (8) of the Code is clear leaving thereby very little scope for ambiguity in regard to the power of the Court to direct further investigation even after taking of cognizance on the basis of the police report submitted earlier. ( 20 ) IT could be that such power can very well be exercised by learned court and direction for further investigation can be given in response to prayer made by the concerned police authority when fresh materials in the form of further evidence, oral or documentary, is obtained. ( 21 ) IT now need be seen as to whether such power can be exercised by the learned Court in response to a prayer to that effect from the de facto complainant. ( 22 ) THOUGH much emphasis was laid on the decision in the case of istakuddin Mondal @ Haradhan Mondal (supra), it appears that the learned single Bench of this Court while taking a stand different from an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Prithwis Kumar Nag vs. State of West bengal and Ors. , reported in 1998 Cr. LJ 3502, did not take into consideration the detailed factual aspects, nor the same were distinguished. Admittedly, on receipt of a final report, the Court can exercise one of the following options: (i) the Court can accept the final report and discharge the accused person; (ii) the Court can take cognizance on the basis of the materials placed by the police while submitting final report and proceed accordingly; and (iii) the Court may very well reject the said final report and direct further investigation. ( 23 ) IT is also the accepted legal position that the learned Court while accepting the final report and discharging the accused persons is under a duty to inform the de facto complainant and give him an opportunity of hearing. ( 23 ) IT is also the accepted legal position that the learned Court while accepting the final report and discharging the accused persons is under a duty to inform the de facto complainant and give him an opportunity of hearing. There is further duty on the part of the learned Court to intimate the de facto complainant accordingly while discharging any of the F. I. R. named accused persons even after taking of cognizance. ( 24 ) BUT, materials available on record indicate that the learned Court did not bother to intimate the de facto complainant at that stage. Though, at the time of hearing of the present application this aspect was not effectively raised, it appears that an earlier revisional application challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing further investigation was disposed of by the learned Revisional Court. The same was sought to be challenged in the High Court but it was not followed up. The present petitioner in the instant application raised similar grievances and in the peculiar factual backdrop of the present case, those cannot be brushed aside. A legal proposition cannot escape the scrutiny of the Court on mere technical ground and even if not raised, it can be a matter of scrutiny by a higher Court at any stage of the proceeding. ( 25 ) THIS Court in response to the instant application accepts the legal position that after taking of cognizance, the Court can direct further investigation only in terms of section 173 (8) of Criminal Procedure Code. This being the well-settled position of law which was not effectively distinguished in the subsequent judgment of the learned Single Bench in the case of Istakuddin Mondal @ Haradhan Mondal (supra), I do not find any reason for not proceeding on the basis of the said earlier settled legal position and thereby respectfully disagreeing with the stand subsequently taken. ( 26 ) QUESTION may now arise as to where would the de facto complainant or a victim go if it is found that his genuine grievances have not been taken into proper consideration by the Investigating Authority. Is the de-facto complainant helpless onlooker to some conscious act of default or wilful negligence on the part of the police authority? The answer would be "certainly not". Is the de-facto complainant helpless onlooker to some conscious act of default or wilful negligence on the part of the police authority? The answer would be "certainly not". The learned Court is still left with the power under section 319 of the criminal Procedure Code which relates to its power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. ( 27 ) THOUGH not raised, another important aspect perhaps deserves consideration of this Court in response to the present application under section 482 of the Code. As discussed earlier, Investigating Authority submitted chargesheet in the case for the offences including an offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against some persons who admittedly were not mentioned in the F. I. R. There cannot be any legal restriction in that since F. I. R. is just the foundation and the allegations made therein are not required to be exhaustive. In the present case, unfortunately, the matter did not end there. ( 28 ) AFTER taking of cognizance on the basis of the report submitted by the investigating Authority, learned Court in response to the prayer made by the I. O. discharged some of the F. I. R. named accused persons. This was done without offering an opportunity of hearing to the de facto complainant and as indicated earlier, this is certainly not permissible in law. The fact that such issue was not raised at the time of hearing of the present application certainly does not and cannot stand in the way of this Court's dealing with the same. ( 29 ) SECTION 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: "482. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. " ( 30 ) SUCH inherent power of the High Court closely resembles section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. It cannot be disputed that in exercise of this power, this Court can certainly pass direction in order to undo a wrong where such wrong has been allowed to remain unassailed and which, if continues to be in force, will certainly result in miscarriage of justice. It cannot be disputed that in exercise of this power, this Court can certainly pass direction in order to undo a wrong where such wrong has been allowed to remain unassailed and which, if continues to be in force, will certainly result in miscarriage of justice. In order to justify interference under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure code, this Court is certainly called upon to consider that the injustice which comes to the light is of a grave character and not of a trivial nature. It should be clear and palpable and is not doubtful. No doubt, such inherent power is to be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ( 31 ) IN the present case, for the reasons as discussed earlier, this Court is certainly required to play a more active role than what has been expected by the parties. ( 32 ) THIS leads the Court to the inevitable conclusion that the order of taking cognizance being the order dated 31st August, 2001 deserves to be set aside. Learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South), is hereby directed to consider the relevant materials as well as the chargesheet No, 141 dated 29. 7. 2001 submitted in connection with Canning Police Station Case No. 160 dated 25. 12. 2000 under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. Order of taking of cognizance and orders passed subsequent thereto are hereby set aside. ( 33 ) WHILE taking of the matter for fresh consideration, learned Court is directed to send a notice upon the de facto complainant and thereby give such complainant an opportunity of hearing. This must be done before any order is passed. In response to the prayer made by the I. O. for discharge of any of the F. I. R. named accused persons, it will be open for the learned court to take into consideration all that had happened in the case, thereafter, and learned Court must pass order in accordance with law ( 34 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the matter is pending for quite sometime, it is expected that the learned Court in compliance with the earlier direction will take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. ( 35 ) THE present application being C. R. R. No. 1062 of 2006 stands accordingly disposed of. Send a copy of this order to the learned Court of additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Pgs. (S) for information and necessary action. ( 36 ) DEPARTMENT is directed to supply certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the learned Counsel for both parties in compliance with due formalities. Application disposed of.