JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 10.7.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Tonk Distt. Tonk in Cr. Revision No. 34/2014 whereby the order dated 26.2.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Cr. Case No. 47/2008 has been upheld whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. 2. The short facts of the case are that Junior Engineer, PWD Shri Harish Ahuja submitted a written report with the allegation that on 25.3.2003, Kalu Harijan breaking the wall of Dak Bungalow, installed a new gate on which FIR No. 91/2003 was registered. During the course of investigation, it has been brought on record that the petitioners have purchased the land under due title. Shri Aziz-Ul-Haq has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the present petitioners on 6.10.2003 and Aziz-Ul-Haq was having the right over the land through Nawab of Tonk Ismail Ali Khan. All these facts have been investigated in FIR No. 91/2003 and negative final report has been filed. After investigation, notice has been issued to the complainant but in spite of notice he did not appear before the court below and on 20.2.2004 after considering the entire evidence available on record and conclusion of the Investigating Officer, negative final report has been accepted by the competent court but to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the fresh investigation has been started without any intimation to the petitioner as well as without any permission of the Court and thereafter charge-sheet 23/2008 has been filed against the petitioners and the court below has mechanically without considering the fact that earlier negative final report has been accepted by the court, cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act and revision has also been dismissed, hence this petition. 3. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that cognizance order is totally per verse and liable to be quashed as earlier negative final report has been accepted by the court vide its order dated 20.2.2004 and thereafter without the permission of the court, the police was not competent to investigate the matter and his further contention is that charge-sheet 23/2008 is not having any reference as regards to previous investigation which shows that the police has started fresh investigation wiping out the earlier investigation and the Apex Court has held in catena of judgments that fresh investigation is unwarranted and other contention of the petitioners is that the court was not competent to take cognizance against the petitioners as on earlier occasion, negative final report has been accepted and looking to the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. when the order has attained finality, the second cognizance is barred and on merits of the case, the contention of the petitioners is that they are bonafide purchasers. They have not made any false representation or inducement to anyone. They have purchased the property under the registered sale deed and on the allegations, the highest case of civil nature could be made out which has been given the colour of criminality, hence the cognizance and pursuant to cognizance, the further proceedings be quashed against the petitioners.Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that when new facts have arisen in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer was authorised to investigate further and an additional report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been presented which was within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer. The cognizance has rightly been taken against the petitioners which has been upheld in revision, hence in the garb of this petition second revision is not maintainable and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the documents presented by the petitioners. 5. FIR No. 91/2003 has been lodged on 25.3.2003 by Junior Engineer, PWD on the allegation that Kalu Harijan has encroached some land belonging to Dak Bungalow. The matter has been investigated and negative final report has been filed before the competent court in which it has also been concluded by the Investigating Officer that Aziz-Ul-Haq is in possession of the land. The matter has been investigated and negative final report has been filed before the competent court in which it has also been concluded by the Investigating Officer that Aziz-Ul-Haq is in possession of the land. The land was initially personal property of Nawab of Tonk Ismail Ali Khan which was gifted to Abdul Hafiz vide gift deed 1.1.54 and Aziz-Ul-Haq is the son of Abdul Hafiz, hence he has acquired ownership as well as possession of the property. It has also been stated in the negative final report that Aziz-Ul-Haq is in physical possession of the land over the years. Admittedly, Aziz-Ul-Haq has sold the property to the present petitioners by way of registered sale deed dated 3.10.2003 meaning thereby that after lodging of the FIR, present petitioners have purchased the land by way of registered sale deed. On submission of negative final report, notices have been issued to complainant and in spite of notice, none appeared before the court and after considering the merits of the case negative final report has been accepted. Thereafter, without the permission of the Court, the matter has been again reopened and charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners. The surprising facts of the case are that charge-sheet which has been filed before the court below on 23.2.2008, there is no reference or narration that earlier the matter has been investigated or negative final report has been submitted or the fact that it was accepted by the Court. The charge-sheet has been filed with total new texture and counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied upon Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 762 where in 40.6 it has been held as under: "40.6. It has been a procedure of proprietary that the police has to seek permission of the Court to continue 'further investigation' and file supplementary charge sheet. This approach has been approved by this Court in a number of judgments. This as such would support the view that we are taking in the present case. (Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 129 Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 299 and Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration): (1997) 1 SCC 361 ; and Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. Of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 ) . 6. (Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 129 Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 299 and Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration): (1997) 1 SCC 361 ; and Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. Of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 ) . 6. In view of the above, it was the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to seek previous leave of the Court to conduct further investigation. Further reliance has been placed on Ramachandran v. R. Udayakumar & ors., AIR 2008 SC 3102 where the Apex Court is emphatically of the opinion that after the completion of the investigation further investigation could be done but no fresh investigation or reinvestigation. In the present case, a bare reading of charge-sheet goes to show that de novo investigation has been started on behalf of CID, CB wiping out the earlier investigation. Further reliance has been placed on Rama Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 wherein the law has clearly been explained and stated as under: "From a plain reading of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of police report under Sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to "further" investigation under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". The meaning of "Further" is additional; more; or supplemental. "Further" investigation, therefore, 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." 7. In view of the above, in the present case, the Investigation Officer was not competent to investigate the matter without the previous permission of the court and specially when negative final report was accepted by the court, the order has become final and without assailing the order, investigation without the permission of the court was unwarranted and apart from it, the charge-sheet has been filed as if it is a new investigation and while wiping out the earlier investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed which is not permissible in view of the law laid down in Ram Ramachandran and Rama Choudhary (supra). 8. The other contention of the petitioners also seems to be sound that once negative final report has been accepted by the court, the order has not been assailed it has attained finality. 8. The other contention of the petitioners also seems to be sound that once negative final report has been accepted by the court, the order has not been assailed it has attained finality. The court below was not within its jurisdiction to again order for the cognizance and reference has been made as regards to Section 362 Cr.P.C. and reliance has been placed on Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & ors., JT 2008 (2) SC 19 ; Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & ors., AIR 2001 SC 43 (1) ; Lalta & ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1381 ; Amritlal Ratilal Mehta & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (1980) 1 SCC 121 ; and P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 wherein it has been categorically held that an earlier finding which has attained finality is binding in the subsequent proceedings in the case. Here in the present case, the negative final report has been accepted. The order has attained finality, hence it was not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to review its own order and to order cognizance against the petitioners. 9. The other contention of the petitioners is that they are bonafide purchasers. Aziz-Ul-Haq was the owner of the property as the land was gifted to his father by a written gift deed dated 1.1.54 and admittedly, he was in settled possession of the property and present petitioners have purchased the property by way of registered sale deed, hence he was a bonafide purchaser and reliance has been placed on Mohd. Ibrahim & ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein it has been held as under: "When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint." 10. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint." 10. In view of the above, the present petitioners are bona fide purchasers and furthermore allegation in the FIR accepted to be true do not constitute any offence. The petitioners have purchased the property under duly registered document predecessor in title was in settled possession, hence in view of the facts of the case the cognizance taken against the petitioners is clearly abuse of the process of the Court and liable to be quashed.Hence this petition is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. FIR No. 91/2003, cognizance taken against the petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act pursuant thereto and consequential orders are quashed.Before parting with the case, it is appropriate to consider the facts that the case diary of FIR No. 91/2003 clearly speaks that on 15.6.2004 on the instructions of Additional Director General, CID (CB), SP, CID has ordered for the investigation. The factual report submitted by the Public Prosecutor dated 8.10.2014 also speaks that negative final report was accepted on 20.2.2004 and it was received by the concerned Police Station Kotwali Distt. Tonk and kept on record. In spite of the fact on record, it is very unfortunate that senior officers like Additional Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police has not bothered to consider the fact that earlier negative final report has been filed in the matter and accepted by the court and in dereliction of the court's order investigation has been ordered to start without seeking permission of the Court, hence a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the above erring two officers and result of the same should be communicated to this Court within three months.Petition allowed. *******