Judgment :- 1. Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. The brief facts relevant for considering the criminal petition are that on a report lodged by one Smt. Velagala Ram Manohari (de facto complainant) a case in crime No.59 of 2008 of Penugonda Police Station is registered against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under Section 498 (A) IPC. Subsequently, a charge sheet has been filed and is numbered as C.C. No.478 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku. After the trial court issued summons, the de facto complainant moved an application under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. to direct the police to conduct further investigation on the ground that some material witnesses have not been examined by the investigating officer. The learned Magistrate, by an elaborate and reasoned order, dismissed the petition on the ground that if the de facto complainant so wishes, she can get an application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon any material witnesses during the course of trial and for that purpose further investigation cannot be conducted. After dismissal of the said petition, it appears that the investigating officer filed similar petition under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission for further investigation. The learned Magistrate allowed the said petition holding that if the investigating officer so wishes, he can conduct further investigation. 3. Now, the point for determination in the criminal petition is whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the application filed by the investigating officer for enabling him to conduct further investigation to be quashed? 4. The crucial question to be considered is whether the learned Magistrate after passing an elaborate and reasoned order stating that the petition is designed only to protract the trial of the case and thereafter passing another inconsistent order permitting further investigation. In the opinion of this Court he cannot pass such inconsistent orders. As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate in his earlier order in Crl.M.P. No.7329 of 2009 in C.C. No.478 of 2008 the further investigation was sought only for the purpose of examining additional witnesses. In the opinion of this Court he cannot pass such inconsistent orders. As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate in his earlier order in Crl.M.P. No.7329 of 2009 in C.C. No.478 of 2008 the further investigation was sought only for the purpose of examining additional witnesses. In fact no further investigation is required and new witnesses can be summoned having recourse to Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the Court may in its discretion permit examination of such witnesses notwithstanding the fact that their names are not mentioned in the list of witnesses appended to the charge sheet. 5. The learned Magistrate in the first order itself had dealt with all the issues and declined to permit further investigation in the matter. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate passed another order stating that the police have power to conduct further investigation and therefore further investigation can be proceeded with. The order passed by the learned Magistrate, in my view, is wholly erroneous and goes contra to the earlier order passed by him. Further, since summons have been issued by the learned Magistrate for the purpose of conducting trial and further investigation is only sought for the purpose of examining some more witnesses, at the instance of the de facto complainant, if such a petition is allowed, it will result in delay of the trial and no useful purpose will be served by resorting to such a further investigation. It is not the case of the de facto complainant or the investigating officer that any new facts have come to light and the further investigation has to be conducted in connection with the said facts. The learned Magistrate therefore ought not to have allowed the petition filed by the investigating officer seeking permission to conduct further investigation. Thus, the order dated 17.8.2010 in Crl.M.P. No.3352 of 2010 in C.C. No.478 of 2008 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku being erroneous, the same is hereby quashed. 6. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed.