JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Krishna Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. By means of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 1172 of 2011, State v. Gullu Prasad and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 2011 under Section 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act, police station Kareli, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Allahabad. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Vandana Kushwaha w/o Pawan Kumar Kushwaha, applicant No. 1 and daughter of Lalta Prasad Kushwaha had filed an application before the D.I.G for registration of F.I.R. against the applicants on which the matter was enquired by the S.I. of police station Dhoomanganj, who submitted his report to the D.I.G. In the said report, it was stated that the applicants have not committed any offence against opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad which was dismissed by the Court on the request of counsel for opposite party No. 2 as not pressed vide order dated 7.7.2011. Subsequently, an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants by opposite party No. 2 on 10.5.2011 which was registered as Case Crime No. 124 of 2011 under Section 498A, 307, 326, 504, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act at police station Kareli, District Allahabad in connection with offences having taken place from 11.12.2008 to 24.4.2010. After investigation, the first Investigating Officer, namely, Ram Nath Singh submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants being Charge-sheet No. 58 of 2011 dated 29.6.2011 for offences under Section 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act and stated in the said charge-sheet that no offence under Section 307, 326, 504, I.P.C. was made out against the applicants. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate on 6.7.2011 took cognizance of the offence and directed that the case be registered as Case No. 1172 of 2011. A copy of the said charge-sheet has been annexed as annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate on 6.7.2011 took cognizance of the offence and directed that the case be registered as Case No. 1172 of 2011. A copy of the said charge-sheet has been annexed as annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. The applicants appeared before the Court and were granted bail on 29.8.2011 except applicant No. 1, Pawan Kumar Kushwaha, who was granted bail by this Court on 2.11.2011. It appears that when the complainant came to know about the submission of Charge-sheet under Sections 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act submitted against the applicants by the Investigating Officer, Ram Nath Singh then she moved an application alongwith an affidavit before the D.I.G., Allahabad alleging that the first Investigating Officer had not conducted the investigation in a fair manner on which the D.I.G. vide order dated 29.8.2011 entrusted the investigation to another Investigating Officer with immediate effect and further ordered the Station Officer, Kareli to carry on the investigation in view of the provisions of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. after completing all the legal formalities. The second Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the applicants on 13.12.2011.From the order sheet of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V in Case No. 1172 of 2011, it appears that 27.1.2012 was fixed for framing of charges and on 7.1.2012 a supplementary charge-sheet No. 58 A was filed in the Court of Magistrate for offences under Sections 307, 326, 504, I.P.C. on the basis of which the learned magistrate again took cognizance of the offence and directed that the case be registered against the applicants on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet. The Court fixed 14.12.2011 for framing of charges against the applicants vide ordered dated 5.11.2011. The applicants again appeared before the Court on 27.1.2012, date fixed for framing of charges. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the manner in which the supplementary charge-sheet has been brought on record before the trial Court and the second cognizance taken for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 504, I.P.C. by the trial Court on 7.1.2012 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the manner in which the supplementary charge-sheet has been brought on record before the trial Court and the second cognizance taken for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 504, I.P.C. by the trial Court on 7.1.2012 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the learned magistrate after taking cognizance on 6.7.2011 on the basis of the earlier charge-sheet could not have taken cognizance again on 7.1.2012 for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 504, I.P.C. on the basis of the investigation ordered under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. He submitted that after the cognizance, the reinvestigation which was alleged to have been ordered by the D.I.G. under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. is barred. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the discharge application moved by the applicants for discharging them for offences under Section 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was also illegally rejected by the magistrate vide order dated 26.5.2012 and the applicants were directed to appear before the Court for getting themselves bailed out for offences under Sections 307, 326 and 504, I.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2009 (65) ACC 962, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that further investigation is permitted under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. whereas reinvestigation is prohibited. In another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants in Ramachandran v. R Udhayakumar, 2008 (62) ACC 351, it was held that the police has no right of fresh investigation or reinvestigation. 4. In another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants in Ramachandran v. R Udhayakumar, 2008 (62) ACC 351, it was held that the police has no right of fresh investigation or reinvestigation. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. replying to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that after the submission of charge-sheet under Section 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act by the first Investigating Officer, the D.I.G. Allahabad on the complaint received by opposite party No. 2 was of the view that the Investigating Officer, who had submitted charge-sheet only under Section 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act had not conducted the investigation in a fair manner hence he entrusted the investigation to another Investigating Officer and directed him to conduct the investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the D.I.G. did not order for reinvestigation of the case which is evident from the order dated 29.8.2011 passed by D.I.G., Allahabad in pursuance of which, the second Investigating Officer carried out further investigation in the case. After collecting the medical examination report of the injured/opposite party No. 2, Smt. Vandana incorporated the same in the supplementary case diary, submitted a supplementary charge-sheet on 13.12.2011 against the applicants for offences under Section 307, 326 and 504, I.P.C. and filed the same before the Court of Magistrate. Learned A.G.A. has further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Choudhry (Supra) which was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants and has argued that in the said case, the Apex Court has held that the law does not mandate taking appropriate permission from the Magistrate for further investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. and it is well-settled that carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a distinct statutory right of the police. He relied upon paragraphs 9 and 13 of the said judgment in support of his arguments. He further submitted that further investigation was not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. The Court has to arrive at the truth, to do real and substantial as well as effective justice. He relied upon paragraphs 9 and 13 of the said judgment in support of his arguments. He further submitted that further investigation was not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. The Court has to arrive at the truth, to do real and substantial as well as effective justice. In support of his contention, learned A.G.A. has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujrat and others, (2004) 5 SCC 347 and also Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi, 2002 (1) SCC 714 , in which the Apex Court clearly laid down the law on Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears from the record that the first Investigating Officer who had submitted the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D.P. Act did not conduct the fair investigation though the case was also registered under Sections 307, 326, 504, I.P.C. alongwith the aforesaid offences and had stated that no offence under Sections 307, 326, 504, I.PC. was disclosed against the applicants. From the perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her parents and other witnesses, it is apparent that there is an allegation that the victim Smt. Vandana Kushwaha was burnt by pouring kerosene oil by the applicants including her husband and she received sufficient burn injuries on her body for which she was admitted into Narayan Swaroop hospital by her father and she remained in the hospital from 26.4.2010 to 11.5.2010 and the doctor made a diagnosis of Thermal burn injuries 33% on her body for which she was given medical treatment in the said hospital as is evident from the prescription and the medical documents filed as C.A.-1 alongwith short counter-affidavit by opposite party No. 2 before this Court. The fact about the medical treatment in the said hospital was also found endorsed in the supplementary charge-sheet, being charge-sheet No. 58A of 2011 on 13.12.2011 under Sections 307, 326, 504, I.P.C. It is apparent from the record that the other Investigating Officer carried out further investigation in view of the provisions contained under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and submitted a supplementary charge-sheet against the applicants in accordance with law. The submission made by learned counsel for the applicants that the police had no power to re-investigate the matter in view of the provisions contained under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. when cognizance has earlier been taken by the learned Magistrate on the first charge-sheet under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. on 6.7.2011 which submitted for the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and Sections 3/4, D.P. Act only is wholly unfounded and the case laws which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants, i.e., Rama Chaudhary (Supra) and Rama Chandran (Supra) lay down that even after completion of investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C., the police has a statutory right to further investigate the matter under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. The investigation which was carried out by the second Investigating Officer, who submitted a supplementary charge-sheet under Sections 307, 326, 504 I.P.C. against the applicants, was in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. which was in pursuance of the order of D.I.G. who did not order to re-investigate rather only to further investigate the matter under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. The very order of the DIG to investigate under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. is itself a point to the fact that further investigation had only been ordered as that particular provision concerns the police-powers to that effect. As such, the submission that the IInd I.O. re-investigated the case appears quite hollow and merit less. Hence the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicants do not support his contention, rather it supports the argument of the learned A.G.A. Thus the argument of learned counsel for the applicants to this respect is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. Learned A.G.A. has produced the copy of the order dated 29th August, 2011 passed by the D.I.G., Allahabad by which he has ordered for investigation in pursuance of the provisions contained under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. before this Court alongwith the case diary and after perusal of the same it transpires that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that reinvestigation was ordered by the D.I.G. in view of the provisions contained under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. has no force. 7. 7. From a perusal of the order-sheet of the case, it appears that the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence again on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet vide order dated 7.1.2012 which is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence the order of the magistrate only in that respect by which he has taken again cognizance is struck down. However, if the Magistrate was passing an order on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet after due application of his mind to the facts collected during further investigation and was asking the accused to appear in respect of other offences also, it could be treated as another order of summoning and that the magistrate in my considered view, being the Court of original jurisdiction in that behalf, is not precluded to do. 8. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case taking into account all the materials available on record including those which were collected during further investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. and examine the offences disclosed against the applicants at the time of framing charges. No ground for quashing the entire proceedings is made out, the same is hereby refused. Applicants are directed to appear before the Court below within two weeks from today as ordered by the Court below vide order dated 26.5.2012. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. ——————