Judgment : 1. Heard Mr.Bodake, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard, Mr.Shekhavat, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. Heard Ms.Sonawane, learned APP for the respondent nos.1 and 4. 2. The petitioner is the first informant in C.R.No.46 of 2009, registered with Dhebewadi police station, Patan, District-Satara, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 325 of IPC, 323 of IPC, 504 of IPC and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed a report alleging commission of the aforesaid offences by the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein who are the real brothers of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation that had been carried out, though the same had resulted into filing of the charge-sheet; and, therefore, made an application to the learned Magistrate praying that investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be ordered to be carried out by the local Crime Branch, Satara. It appears that the police carried out further investigation but opined that nothing new could be revealed even after such investigation. It appears that in the meantime the trial commenced, and two witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The witnesses, however, did not support the prosecution case and were declared as 'hostile'. According to the petitioner though those witnesses were declared as hostile, they were not thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioner, therefore, made an application before the Magistrate in that regard, but did not press it. Ultimately, by an application dated 26th May, 2011, the petitioner once again prayed before the Magistrate that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Satara, or local Crime Branch, Satara or any other superior officer or independent agency, be directed to re-investigate and/or to further investigate into the matter. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 19th June, 2013, after hearing the parties. It is being aggrieved by this order, that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took into consideration all the contentions advanced by the petitioner before him. It is being aggrieved by this order, that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took into consideration all the contentions advanced by the petitioner before him. The learned Magistrate inter-alia observed that on the basis of the grievances of the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Patan had investigated into the matter again, but no new material or evidence could be collected, as a result of such further investigation. The learned Magistrate referred to the petitioner's grievance about the offences of theft also having taken place and made certain observations about the merits of the contentions advanced by the petitioner in that regard. The Magistrate observed that there was no substance in the allegations that the Dhebewadi police had not properly investigated into the matter. 4. With respect to the legal position, the learned Magistrate was of the view that he had no powers to order 'reinvestigation' or further investigation and that he did not have inherent powers like the High Courts. He also observed that the trial Court can exercise powers under Sections 311 and 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in appropriate cases. 5. I am unable to see how the order passed by the Magistrate can be termed as patently illegal, improper or incorrect. 6. In any case, it is clear that the trial has already commenced and two witnesses have already been examined. At this stage, directing of further investigation to be carried out would not be just and proper. This is particularly so because the Magistrate has already observed that there exists power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which can be exercised by the trial Court in appropriate cases. Undoubtedly, the reference to the provisions of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as made by the Magistrate is incorrect, as such power would be available only at the appellate stage. Undoubtedly, the reference to the provisions of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as made by the Magistrate is incorrect, as such power would be available only at the appellate stage. Nevertheless, the reference to discretionary powers of the trial Court vested in it by Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is proper and if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the alleged action of the investigating agency of having held some material back from the Court, he can make an application before the trial Court seeking production of evidence and/or for examining certain persons. 7. In the course of arguments, I have heard the petitioner who is present before the Court in person also. His main grievance appears to be that the two witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile because they had been pressurised and threatened by the respondent nos.2 and 3. According to him, a direction to recall and reexamine the said witnesses needs to be given to the trial Court. 8. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to give any such direction. However, it would be open for the petitioner to make an application before the Magistrate for recalling the prosecution witnesses who have already been examined, by referring to the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event of an application seeking recall of the prosecution witnesses who have already been examined being made by the petitioner before the Magistrate, such application shall be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate, keeping in mind that no opinion, either way, has been expressed by this Court on the merits of such an application. Except this clarification no other observation needs to be made in this regard. 9. Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.