ORDER H.N. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents, Mr. N. Das, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. G. S. learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for decision today itself. 3. The subject-matter challenged in this writ petition is an order dated 30-7-2009 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai, West Tripura in G.R. 225 of 2008 rejecting the prayer made by the State for re-investigation of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 39/08 under Sections279/337/304(A) of IPC (corresponding to GR 225/08). 4. The bare minimal facts for disposal of this writ petition may be summarized as follows: A vehicular accident took place at Dwarikapur under Kalyanpur Police Station on 8-10-2008 at about 3.30 p.m. In the said accident one Dhruba Narayan Goswami expired. His wife Smt. Lipika Chakraborty (Goswami), respondent No. 5 herein lodged an FIR relating to the said accident with the Kalyanpur Police Station on 11-10-2008. In the said FIR, it is stated that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Maruti Alto Car bearing police registration No. TR-01-N-0406. Upon receipt of the information, police registered the case as Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 39/08 under Sections 279 /337 /304(A) IPC. After completion of the investigation and having found a prima facie case, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against one Ratan Saha, respondent No. 6 herein and forwarded the case to the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai. Upon process of the Court being issued, the accused appeared and the charge was framed against him which he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and it is submitted at the Bar that the trial is almost in its fag end. In the meantime, the claimant also filed a claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was registered as MAC Case No. TS-01/2009. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and it is submitted at the Bar that the trial is almost in its fag end. In the meantime, the claimant also filed a claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was registered as MAC Case No. TS-01/2009. In the said MAC case upon receipt of the notice, the insurance company, the present petitioner got the matter investigated internally through their investigator and result of such investigation disclosed that in fact the Maruti Alto Car was not involved in the accident, rather a two wheeler (Motor Cycle) bearing police registration No. TR-01-H-6329 is involved in the accident. This led the insurance company to approach the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura praying for reinvestigation of the matter and to unearth the truth. The request was also made to the Director General of Police, Tripura for passing appropriate order and/or direction for reinvestigation of the aforesaid Kalyanpur PS case No. 39/08 in the interest of justice and to save the fraud. On the said application, the Addl. DGP (Law and Order and AP and OPS) on behalf of the Director General of Police, Tripura communicated to the Branch Manager of the petitioner company, Agartala Branch to the effect that reinvestigation of Kalyanpur PS Case No. 39/08 under Sections 279 /337 /304 (A) IPC is being undertaken on receipt of the order from the Court, by CID officers and the learned SDJM Khowai was requested to refrain from further trail of the case pending reinvestigation. Upon receipt of such an instruction from the law enforcing authority, an application was moved on behalf of the State prosecution before the learned SDJM on 20-6-2009 praying for reinvestigation of the matter and in the meantime to stay the proceedings of the GR case. The said application was disposed of by the learned SDJM on 30-7-2009 rejecting the prayer. Challenging the said order, the insurance company has approached this Court by filing this application. 5. Mr. The said application was disposed of by the learned SDJM on 30-7-2009 rejecting the prayer. Challenging the said order, the insurance company has approached this Court by filing this application. 5. Mr. N. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 has strenuously challenged the locus standi of the petitioner insurance company to approach this Court by filing the instant petition contending, inter alia, that the insurance company is neither a party in the aforesaid criminal case nor filed the aforesaid application before the learned SDJM, Khowai and consequently it has no locus standi to approach this Court, if we consider the aforesaid submission on the basis of it, prima facie it appears to be correct and it we go on deeper, we find that the entire episode of reinvestigation was originated on the prayer of the insurance company who would unearth the truth by their own investigating agency that a fraud has been committed in the instant case in relating to the accident as indicated herein above. That apart, in the event any finding as regards the involvement of the Maruti Alto Car in the aforesaid accident is given by the learned SDJM that would certainly cause unlawful and irreparable loss to the insurance company in so far as it relates to payment of the compensation that might eventually be passed in the MACT case by the learned Tribunal. That apart, the Court has also got ample power under Section 401, Cr. P.C. to take up a matter to revise any order suo moto without making any application by any of the aggrieved parties. In the aforesaid scenario, I am not inclined to accept the objection of locus standi as raised by Mr. Das. 6. Turning to the impugned order, it is found that the learned SDJM has not given any opinion as regards the ground for rejection of the prayer for reinvestigation prayed for by the prosecution. Although certain things have been stated as regard his refusal of the prayer made by the State to stay the proceedings, but consciously or unconsciously refrained himself from noting a single word as regards the rejection of the prayer for reinvestigation. 7. The aforesaid facts discussion lead me to consider at what stage reinvestigation can be issued under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr. 7. The aforesaid facts discussion lead me to consider at what stage reinvestigation can be issued under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. After completion of investigation of a criminal case, the investigating agency is required to submit its report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. without any unnecessary delay. The report is to be furnished in a prescribed form furnishing therein the information as contained in Sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P.C. Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. provides that the investigating agency is within its jurisdiction to make further investigation in respect of an offence after report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and wherein in such investigation the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station obtains further evidence, oral and 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). 8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law discloses that there is no express provision under the Code which makes it statutorily compulsory for the investigating agency to obtain prior permission from a Court for further investigation. 9. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in and Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2009 SCW 3780 : AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 1658 submits that even after the Court takes cognizance of an offence on the earlier report submitted by the investigating agency, it is open for the police authority to conduct further investigation in a proper manner on the face of the facts come to its light and for that purpose it should seek permission of the Court. That apart, on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the I/O. on earlier occasion, the learned SDJM not only took cognizance of the offence but also framed charge against the accused respondent No. 6 who has in the meantime entered into his defence. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined in the meantime and the case is at the stage of examining the accused under Section 313, Cr. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined in the meantime and the case is at the stage of examining the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Thus a clear picture has almost emerged on the basis of the earlier investigation. In such a situation, in my considered opinion, the permission of the learned SDJM to make further investigation has been rightly sought for by the prosecution. 10. As pointed out herein above, the learned SDJM has not stated anything as regards the rejection of such prayer made by the State prosecution for further investigation of the case. This leads me to conclude that the learned SDJM has not at all applied his mind to the basic grievance raised by the prosecution praying for reinvestigation of the matter. In the instant case, from the facts eluded herein above and the circumstances that have been brought forwarded before the Court as well as from the documents submitted before me including the averments made in this petition, the possibility of fraud cannot be ruled out altogether. The petitioner insurance company, which is a public authority and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India made necessary inquiry on its own through its investigator and unearthed the non-involvement of the Maruti Alto car and involvement of a two wheeler (Motor Cycle) bearing police registration No. TR-01-H-6329 in the accident, if the aforesaid fact is found to be true, in that event serious injustice would be made to the accused respondent No. 6 if he is found guilty by the learned trial Court. That would also lead the petitioner insurance company to pay the necessary compensation in the MACT case on account of the Maruti Alto car which was duly insured with the insurer petitioner. The authority in the police department known as Director General of Police having applied his mind decided to go for reinvestigation of the case and issued necessary order accordingly through the Addl. DGP (Law and Order and AP and OPS) vide his communication dated 16-6-2009 addressed to the Branch Manager of the petitioner insurance company. The authority in the police department known as Director General of Police having applied his mind decided to go for reinvestigation of the case and issued necessary order accordingly through the Addl. DGP (Law and Order and AP and OPS) vide his communication dated 16-6-2009 addressed to the Branch Manager of the petitioner insurance company. Thus, in the event of allowing the criminal proceeding pending before the learned SDJM and the claim proceeding before the MAC Tribunal to be continued taking note of the result of the investigation made by the I/O. in Kalyanpur PS Case No. 39 of 2003 accusing the respondent No. 6 herein for the occurrence, the liability would be of two folds, one criminal in respect of the respondent No. 6 and the other civil in respect of the petitioner insurance company. When an allegation of fraud arose and prima facie truth of this allegation comes to the Court, it would be the plainest duty of the Court to unearth the said fraud within its permissible limit as provided under the law. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I revise the impugned order dated 30-7-2009 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai, West Tripura in G. R. 225 of 2008 and direct the State respondents to proceed with further investigation of Kalyanur PS Case No. 39/08 (corresponding to GR 225/08) forthwith. Such investigation shall be completed within a period of two months from the receipt of this order and furnish the report before the learned trial Court. For the aforesaid period the proceeding before the learned SDJM as well as the MAC Tribunal shall remain suspended. It is further reiterated that the investigating agency shall complete the investigation within the aforesaid prescribed period since in the meantime, the concerned parties are spending sleepless night. 12. This writ petition stands allowed as indicated above. Petition allowed