JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 2, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Final Report No. 55/2011 relating to FIR No. 48/2011, registered at Police Station Losal, District Sikar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, whereby the learned Trial Court directed the investigating agency for further investigation on certain specific points. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court sent the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Losal, District Sikar. On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered FIR bearing No. 48/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 IPC. However, after due investigation, investigating officer submitted negative Final Report No. 55/2011 on 31.12.2011, claiming that the case was basically of a civil nature. In the meanwhile, the complainant-Respondent No. 3 filed two civil suits before the learned District Judge, Sikar for declaration, partition, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction. 3. Since the complainants-Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were aggrieved by the negative final report, they filed a protest petition before the learned Trial Court. On 26.04.2012, the learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After carefully examining the case diary and arguments of the respondents, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.05.2012, directed the police to further investigate on certain points, i.e. : (a) Whether from the disputed place, articles of complainant were removed or not. (b) With respect to making a site plan of dispute place. (c) With respect to telephone and electricity connections of shop in dispute. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2012, the petitioners have preferred the present petition before this Court. 5. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the investigating agency has launched a fresh investigation wiping out the entire investigation carried out by them earlier pursuant to an order passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which resulted in filing of negative final report. 5. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the investigating agency has launched a fresh investigation wiping out the entire investigation carried out by them earlier pursuant to an order passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which resulted in filing of negative final report. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the learned Trial Court ordered for further investigation on specific points, but the investigating agency ventured to make fresh investigation on documents namely Pattas etc. and this resulted in gross abuse of investigative powers which is contrary to the scope of further investigation. It is further submitted that the arrest of the petitioners-accused in investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. would subvert the entire course of inquiry under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. by the learned Trial Court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala & Others, (1998) 5 SCC 223 ; Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, JT 2009 (5) SC 14 ; 1. Pramatha Nath Talukdar (In Cr. A. No. 75 of 61) and 2. Surendra Mohan Basu, In Cr. A. No. 77 of 61 v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (in both appeals), AIR 1962 SC 876 ; Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (Smt) & Another, (2006) 1 SCC 627 : 2006 (1) WLC (SC) Cri 453 ; Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Others v. V. Narayana Reddy & Others, AIR 1976 SC 1672 ; Tula Ram & Others v. Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 459 ; as well as decision rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of S.K. Jamaluddin & Others v. State of Bihar & Another, 1980 Cri.L.J. 1054 and decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mr. Rajaram Venkatesh & Others v. The State of A.P. & Others, 1993 Cri.L.J. 707 . Rajaram Venkatesh & Others v. The State of A.P. & Others, 1993 Cri.L.J. 707 . Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners prayed that direction be issued for fair and forthright investigation as it is mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the investigating officer be restrained from investigating the case at hand afresh and beyond the scope of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has further prayed that the investigating officer may also be restrained from arresting the accused-petitioners during course of investigation as directed by the learned Trial Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4-complainants vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. recognises the right and confers statutory duty on the investigating agency to conduct further investigation and submit final report on the basis of fresh materials at any stage and no prior permission from the Magistrate is required for further investigation. A mere reading of the sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that even after submission of the police report under sub-Section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to "further" investigate under sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". The meaning of "further" is additional, more or supplemental. Further investigation in the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab-initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Learned counsel for the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 further submitted that carrying out a further investigation even after filing of the F.R. is a statutory right of the police. The prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 3 and 4 has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Another, 1989 Cri.L.J. 963 ; Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 ; Mohit Alias Sonu & Another v. State of U.P. & Another, 2013(2) WLC(SC) Cri. 207 ; Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu & Anr., 2013(2) WLC(SC) Cri. 207 ; Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu & Anr., 2013(2) WLC(SC) Cri. 224 and the decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Dalmiya v. State of Rajasthan & Another, 2013(3) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 1154 . 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that proper, fair and righteous procedure of investigation was adopted by the investigating officer after receiving order for further investigation from the learned Trial Court. Hence, present misc. petition has no force and the same may be dismissed. 8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides advanced by their learned counsels and carefully gone through the impugned order and other material on record. 9. The points which require consideration by this Court are whether 'further investigation' with respect to the impugned order dated 11.05.2012 by the learned Trial Court would be investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. or Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; whether further investigation would mean fresh or re-investigation in the light of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and whether power of police to arrest with respect to further investigation is beyond the scope of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Sections 156, 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. read thus: "156.Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.-(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 200. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 200. Examination of complainant.-A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate : Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192 : Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them. 202. Postponement of issue of process.-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant." 10. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of law it is made clear that Section 202 Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate has two options, either to inquire into the case himself, or to direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person whom he thinks fit. However, proviso (b) attached to Section 202(1) clearly provides that no such direction for investigation shall be made unless complainant and witnesses have been examined on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thus, direction for investigation can be made only after recording the statement of the complainant and of his witnesses. The Trial Court is not bound by the negative Final Report submitted by the police and it can accept a protest petition. A protest petition is treated as a complaint. Once the protest petition is treated as a complaint, obviously the Magistrate is duty bound to record the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before directing investigation by the police. 11. In the present case, although, the impugned order does not mention whether the police to investigate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. or under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but looking to the facts of the case, it is clear that a negative report was filed on 31.12.2011. On 26.04.2012, the learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant and directed for further investigation on 11.05.2012. Therefore, the direction for further investigation has been given after recording the statement of the complainant. Hence, the said direction was given under Section 202 Cr.P.C. keeping in mind the proviso (b) appended to Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. 12. There is presumption of law that an official performs any act in accordance with law. Therefore, the direction for further investigation has been given after recording the statement of the complainant. Hence, the said direction was given under Section 202 Cr.P.C. keeping in mind the proviso (b) appended to Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. 12. There is presumption of law that an official performs any act in accordance with law. It is also settled position of law that once statement is recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which operates prior to cognizance by Magistrate. After recording of statement, Magistrate directs for investigation for the purpose of deciding whether to proceed or not, with respect to issuing of processes or for dismissal of complaint if no case is made out. 13. In the case of H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary, Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the police even as he is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the complainant in a complaint. If a complainant states the relevant facts in his complaint and alleges that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the complainant. He may think that the facts disclose an offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code only and he may take cognizance of an offence under Section 324 instead of Section 307. Similarly if a police report mentions that half a dozen persons examined by them claim to be eye witnesses to a murder but that for various reasons the witnesses could not be believed, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the opinion of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses. He may prefer to ignore the conclusions of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses and take cognizance of the offence. If he does so, it would be on the basis of the statements of the witnesses as revealed by the police report. He would be taking cognizance upon the facts disclosed by the police report though not on the conclusions arrived at by the police. It could not be said in such a case that he was taking cognizance on suspicion." 14. He would be taking cognizance upon the facts disclosed by the police report though not on the conclusions arrived at by the police. It could not be said in such a case that he was taking cognizance on suspicion." 14. It is clear from the case cited above that with respect to the present case, the learned Trial Court after recording of statement of complainant, arguments by respondents and examination of case diary along with facts disclosed by the final report had taken cognizance and thereafter ordered for further investigation. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarapalli Laksminarayana Reddy & Others(supra) has observed as under: "......when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(a)........" The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case further held: "......On the other hand, Section 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under Section 202 to direct within the limits circumscribed by that section, an investigation, "for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding". "Thus the object of an investigation under Section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him." 16. In the present case, after submission of final report to the learned Trial Court, when the complainant-Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed protest petition, thereafter learned Trial Court, upon perusal of the record before it, when found evidence collected by the police to be insufficient with respect to the three points, referred hereinabove, learned Trial Court directed for further investigation. Hence, such an investigation is under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 17. The dictionary meaning of "further" is "additional; more; supplemental". Therefore, further investigation is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Hence, such an investigation is under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 17. The dictionary meaning of "further" is "additional; more; supplemental". Therefore, further investigation is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report or reports and not fresh report or reports regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Narang Etc. v. State of Delhi (Admn.), 1979 AIR 1791 has held as under: ".........Neither Section 173 nor Section 190 lead us to hold that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permitted repeated investigations on discovery of fresh facts......." 19. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mst. Laxma & Ors. v. Jagdish & Anr., S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3924/2012, decided on 08.03.2013 held as under: "On filing of an application/complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and being satisfied that a cognizable offence is made out, a Magistrate should order to the concerning police station to register the same and to send a report after investigation. A report so received by the Magistrate concerned is under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and after taking cognizance, the matter is to be proceeded further. On an application with the prayer for issuing direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Magistrate is not to take the same as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and proceed himself under the subsequent provision of law i.e. Section 200 Cr.P.C., etc. and pass an order under Section 203/204 Cr.P.C......... ........In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has mixed the two procedures and passed the impugned order for registration of the application which was made with the prayer for exercising powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., after statement of complainant and his witnesses and issued directions to submit the report after investigation. Such a procedure adopted is illegal and contrary to law....." 20. Such a procedure adopted is illegal and contrary to law....." 20. In the case of Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna & Another, AIR 2009 SC 2932 : 2009 (2) WLC (SC) Cri 392 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: "The Investigating Officer may exercise his statutory power of further investigation in several situations as, for example, when new facts come to its notice; when certain aspects of the matter had not been considered by it and it found that further investigation is necessary to be carried out from a different angle(s) keeping in view the fact that new or further materials came to its notice. Apart from the aforementioned grounds, the learned Magistrate or the Superior Courts can direct further investigation, if the investigation is found to be tainted and/or otherwise unfair or is otherwise necessary in the ends of justice." 21. The object of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is limited to the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Arrest of accused person is part of the investigation and is within the discretion of investigating officer. Criminal Procedure Code provides for arrest by police officer without warrant in case of cognizable offences. Since the power is discretionary, a police officer is not always bound to arrest an accused even if allegation against him is of having committed cognizable offence. 22. In the present case, as per Section 41, police has right to arrest accused, as it is cognizable offence. So, the petitioners here are in apprehension of arrest by the investigating agency. In such a case, there will be no justification by this Court to direct the police not to arrest the petitioners-accused during course of further investigation of the case. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 has held as under: "In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function." 24. Therefore, the view of Judiciary is clear about demarcation of functions of executive and judiciary in field of detection of crime and its trial. It appears that power of police to investigate into cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary. 25. In view of above discussions, this Court does not find anything illegal about the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. The impugned order is perfectly in consonance with the law and accordance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court was quite clear about direction for further investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. This Court, hereby directs the investigating agency to conduct legal, fair, impartial and prompt further investigation of the case and submit its report to the concerned Magistrate. 26. In the interest of justice, under inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the prayer of the petitioners for restraining the investigating officer from arresting them during course of investigation is rejected. 27. In the result, the petition is disposed of as above. 28. Stay application also stands disposed of.Petition and Stay Application Disposed of as above. *******