( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Kunwar Mridul rakesh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Naved M. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. P. Shukla, learned additional Government Advocate as well as mr. R. P. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the charge sheet No. 203/2008 dated 7th of may, 2008, whereby the petitioner has been charged under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station hazratganj, district Lucknow as well as the order dated 12-5-2008, passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate in Case No. 3935 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2002, under Section 498-A/506 IPC and 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station hazratganj, district Lucknow. ( 3 ) ON coming to know about the registration of a case against him, the petitioner approached this court through writ petition no. 2600 (MB) of 2002. This court by means of order dated 15th of May, 2002, passed an interim order to the effect that till further orders of this court the arrest of the petitioners in case crime No. 326 of 2002, under Section 498-A/506 IPC and 3/4 dowry Prohibition Act of P. S. Hazratganj, lucknow shall remain stayed. At the behest of the father of the opposite party No. 2, the senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow entrusted the case for investigation to Shri pankaj Gautam, Circle Officer, Hazratganj. Further it was transferred to S. H. O. , hazratganj by means of order dated 7th of january, 2003, issued by the Senior superintendent of Police, Lucknow. After investigation the police submitted final report dated 27th of April, 2003 as no offence was found to have been committed by the petitioner. However, the Superintendent of Police, City east, Lucknow again ordered for further investigation by some Senior Sub-Inspector of a different Police Station and the investigation was entrusted to Shri Badan Singh, who found that investigation done by the earlier investigating Officer was correct and submitted the final report dated 10th of July, 2003. Against which the opposite party No. 2 filed a protest application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who by means of order dated 6th of September, 2006 issued direction to the S. H. O. , Police station Hazratganj to conduct the further investigation in the matter. Against which the opposite party No. 2 filed a protest application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who by means of order dated 6th of September, 2006 issued direction to the S. H. O. , Police station Hazratganj to conduct the further investigation in the matter. Being aggrieved with which the petitioner filed a revision and vide order dated 7-11-2006, the learned sessions Judge was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 6-9-2006, but ultimately the revision was dismissed by means of order dated 1-3-2008. ( 4 ) SINCE the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the First information Report was dismissed for want of prosecution, he again approached this court through writ petition No. 6588 (MB)of 2006, feeling aggrieved with the order of further investigation on the apprehension that he may be arrested by the police. This court by means of order dated 18th of october, 2006, passed an interim order to the effect that in the meanwhile, the petitioners arrest in Case Crime No. 326 of 2002, under Sections 498-A, 506 !pc and 3/4 dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station hazratganj, Lucknow shall remain stayed. In the meantime the Investigation conducted by Shri N. K. Bajpai, Sub-Inspector, Police station Hazratganj under the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was completed, resulting in final report. ( 5 ) THE petitioners contention is that all of sudden on 23rd of April, 2008, one Senior sub-Inspector of Police Station Hazratganj shri Uma Shanker Tripathi, without any rhyme and reason, without any order of any court, without any order from any superior officer of the Police and even without any order or any authority started a fresh investigation of the instant case mentioning therein that:- (Vernacular matter omitted. . . . . . . . . . Ed.) ( 6 ) IT has further been submitted that the investigating Officer Mr. . . . . . . . . . Ed.) ( 6 ) IT has further been submitted that the investigating Officer Mr. Tripathi has given a cover of investigation that though on the protest application under the order of the learned Magistrate the investigation was started, but in this time also the court has passed an order for further investigation by sending the whole case Diary to Police station Hazratganj and accordingly he was entrusted with the further investigation, whereas except the order dated 6-9-2006 passed by the learned Magistrate for further investigation, there was no other order for further investigation and once pursuant to the aforesaid order the investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer Mr. N. K. Bajpai there was no occasion to proceed for further investigation under the camouflage that there is an order of the learned magistrate for further investigation. ( 7 ) THUS on the aforesaid facts and circumstances he has challenged the charge sheet submitted by the police as well as the order dated 12-5-2008, passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate in case No. 3935 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2002, whereby the learned Chief Judicial magistrate has taken cognizance of offence and has summoned the accused including the petitioner for trial under the aforesaid Sections. ( 8 ) THROUGH counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State the investigation as well as the police report submitted therein on the basis of the said investigation has been justified with the averments that, when against the final report submitted on 28-4-2004 the opposite party No. 2 filed a protest application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued direction for further investigation by means of order dated 6-9-2006, which was challenged by the petitioner as well as his wife through revision No. 378 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow and the learned Sessions Judge stayed the operation of the order dated 6-9-2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 7-11-2006, but ultimately by means of order dated 1st of March, 2008 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same. After dismissal of the revision being dissatisfied with the progress of the investigation, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application dated 27-3-2008 before the Chief judicial Magistrate for getting acquaintance regarding the Case Diary, the learned magistrate called for a report on 27-3-2008 from police Station Hazratganj. After dismissal of the revision being dissatisfied with the progress of the investigation, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application dated 27-3-2008 before the Chief judicial Magistrate for getting acquaintance regarding the Case Diary, the learned magistrate called for a report on 27-3-2008 from police Station Hazratganj. Subsequently when he came to know that the Case Diary was in the Police Station Hazratganj, she moved another application on 17th of April, 2008 before the learned Magistrate to call for the report from the police station concerned. The learned Magistrate called a report from the Police Station by fixing the next date on 24th of April, 2008. ( 9 ) IT appears that since the further investigation was not in progress the S. H. O. , hazratganj on 23rd of April, 2008 deputed another Investigating Officer, who was Mr. Uma Shanker Tripathi to investigate the matter and submit a report, who investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet impugned on 7th of May, 2008. ( 10 ) AFTER perusal of the Case Diary and after applying his mind the learned magistrate took cognizance of offence and accordingly issued summons to the petitioner and other co-accused by means of order impugned. It has also been submitted by the state that since the investigation report submitted by Mr. N. K. Bajpai, Sub-Inspector was without jurisdiction, the same has had no value and therefore, there was no reason to submit the same to the court concerned as, the reason is that Mr. Bajpai started the investigation on 15th of December, 2006, whereas the order of learned Magistrate dated 6th September, 2006 for further investigation had already been stayed by the learned Sessions Judge by means of order dated 7th of November, 2006. Mr. Bajpai, s. I. prepared the report finally on 27th of february, 2007 for its, submission to the court, that was also not proper as the stay order was operating till 1st of March, 2008. Therefore, during the course of operation of the stay order passed by the revisional court, there was no reason or occasion to investigate the matter and if it was done, that is hit by judicial order, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for submission of the said report only on the ground that, that has resulted into a final report. Therefore, during the course of operation of the stay order passed by the revisional court, there was no reason or occasion to investigate the matter and if it was done, that is hit by judicial order, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for submission of the said report only on the ground that, that has resulted into a final report. ( 11 ) THE learned Additional Government advocate further submitted that unless the police report is submitted to the court under Section 173 Cr. P. C. to take cognisance of an offence, the same is no police report as has been defined under Section 2 (r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 2 (r) is reproduced here under:-"2. Definitions-In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires- (r) "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173. " ( 12 ) SO far as the value of the further investigation report submitted under Section 173 (8) is concerned, that is as good as the report submitted under Section 173 (2 ). He further submits that this fact is not disputed that there was no further order of the learned magistrate to make any further investigation after 6th of September, 2006 and there was no occasion also to pass any further order as pursuant to the said order itself no report was submitted by the police officer and when after dismissal of the revision on the application moved by the opposite party no. 2, since the investigation was not in progress, the learned Magistrate called for a report, the S. H. O. , Hazratganj entrusted the matter to Mr. Tripathi and in such a manner, he proceeded for investigation and accordingly his observation, as has been made by him, may not be treated otherwise. 2, since the investigation was not in progress, the learned Magistrate called for a report, the S. H. O. , Hazratganj entrusted the matter to Mr. Tripathi and in such a manner, he proceeded for investigation and accordingly his observation, as has been made by him, may not be treated otherwise. ( 13 ) SO far as the question of the value of the further investigation report is concerned, the jurisdiction of the police to proceed for further investigation either with the permission or without permission of the learned magistrate, it is well settled law that the police is empowered to investigate the matter, even after final police report before the court concerned is submitted as it is permitted by the Honble Supreme Court itself in the case of State of A. P. v. A. S. Peter reported in 2008 (2) Criminal Court Cases 1 (S. C.) : ( AIR 2008 SC 1052 ) in which the Honble supreme Court in paragraph 5 has held as under :-"5. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the charge sheet is a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and re-investigation. Whereas re-investigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not. " ( 14 ) IN the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, the State has tried to defend its action in the aforesaid manner. ( 15 ) IN the same manner the opposite party No. 2 has also tried to defend the investigation conducted by Mr. Uma Shanker tripathi, Sub-Inspector of Police Station hazratganj by filing the counter affidavit. ( 16 ) THE facts emerged out from the case are very clear that the investigation done by mr. N. K. Bajpai, conducted during the operation of the stay order passed by the revisional Court, was without jurisdiction as it was hit by judicial order, therefore, on asking the progress on investigation by the learned Magistrate the S. H. O. , Hazratganj rightly appointed another investigating officer Mr. Uma Shanker Tripathi to investigate the matter. N. K. Bajpai, conducted during the operation of the stay order passed by the revisional Court, was without jurisdiction as it was hit by judicial order, therefore, on asking the progress on investigation by the learned Magistrate the S. H. O. , Hazratganj rightly appointed another investigating officer Mr. Uma Shanker Tripathi to investigate the matter. No doubt after 6-9-2006 there was no other order passed by the learned Magistrate for further investigation, but since no police report was submitted, pursuant to the said order, and it is only the police report on the basis of the investigation conducted by Mr. Uma Shanker tripathi, Investigating Officer, which was submitted before the court, that can be said the police report under Section 2 (r) read with section 173 of the Cr. P. C. ( 17 ) MERELY by mentioning wrong facts that the court has passed the order for further investigation, pursuant to the application of complainant, which was not in existence, it cannot be said that the said investigation vitiates in law as even without order of the magistrate the police has jurisdiction to further investigate the matter, as has been held in the case of A. S. Peter (supra ). Therefore, i do not find any illegality in the order impugned, whereby the petitioner has been summoned for trial. ( 18 ) THE petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .