ORDER : The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent, based on the order passed by the 1st respondent / Superintendent of Police, Tiuruneveli, ordering re-investigation of the case. 2. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the the de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.30 of 2010 on 12.05.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) IPC in respect of an occurrence said to have taken place between 03.07.1998 and 14.08.2009 against three named persons. After due investigation, a charge sheet has been laid for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(b) and 506(ii) IPC, against them, namely, Subbiah, Praveen V.Patel The first charge sheet has been filed against the first petitioner and the second charge sheet against the first accused and Praveen V.Patel and others and the third charge sheet filed against Subbiah and the fourth charge sheet against A1 and Santhulal M. Patel before the Court and the same were not taken on file. 3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the first respondent has issued an order for re-investigation on 16.07.2015, pursuant to which, the petitioner has received a communication dated 28.07.2015, directing him to appear before the 2nd respondent on 04.08.2015 at 10.30 a.m along with records. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Rama Chaudharay vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 346 and in Virender Prasad Singh -vs-Rajesh Bhardwaj and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 171 and in Kishan Lal -vs-Dharmendra Bafna and another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 685 , the respondent can order further investigation and not re-investigation and hence he prays for setting aside the order. He further submits that the re-investigation can only be ordered by a Magistrate by way of judicial order and cannot be passed by an executive. 5. Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents submitted that already five final reports were filed and the Superintendent of Police has ordered reinvestigation on the basis of which the impugned notice has been given. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. 5. Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents submitted that already five final reports were filed and the Superintendent of Police has ordered reinvestigation on the basis of which the impugned notice has been given. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made on both sides and on perusal of the typed set of papers and the complaint registered in Crime No.30 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) IPC on 12.05.2010. The point to be considered by this Court is as to whether the Superintendent of Police is competent to order re-investigation. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Rama Chaudharay -vs-State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 346 wherein it has been stated that even after filing of the charge sheet under Section 173, on completion of the investigation, the police has right to further investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173, but not afresh investigation or reinvestigation. In the said judgment (supra), it has been specifically stated in paragraphs 15 to 17 as follows:- "15.Among other Sub-sections, we are very much concerned about Sub-section (8) which reads as under: "173.(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Subsection (2). " A mere reading of the above provision makes it clear that irrespective of report under Sub-section (2) forwarded to the Magistrate, if the officer in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, it is incumbent on his part to forward the same to the Magistrate with a further report with regard to such evidence in the form prescribed. The above said provision also makes it clear that further investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is prohibited. 16. The above said provision also makes it clear that further investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is prohibited. 16. The law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further investigation is permissible. 17. From a plain reading of Sub-section (2) and Subsection (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". He also relied upon the decision in Kishan Lal vs. Dharmendra Bafna and another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 685 , wherein, also it was held that Section 173 (8) can be invoked when; (1) new facts come to light, or (2) Superior Court finds that the investigation is tainted and or unfair or (3) superior Court finds that it is required to meet the ends of justice. In that case, it was stated that only further investigation alone has been ordered. The relevant paragraph in 16 reads as follows:- "16. 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 he 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. 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. The question, however, is as to whether in a case of this nature a direction for further investigation would be necessary." In Virender Prasad Singh vs. Rajesh Bhardwaj and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 171 , it was held that the reinvestigation ordered is improper, which reinvestigation means the earlier investigation has been wiped out and fresh investigation has been taken. Hence, it is appropriate to incorporate the paragraphs 36 to 38 of the above citation reads as follows: 36. We may also refer to the observations made in another ruling reported as Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and Anr. v. State of Gujarat reported in 2009 (6) SCC 332 . In paragraph 13 of the said decision, this Court has observed:(SCCp.337,para13) "13.It is beyond any cavil that `further investigation' and `reinvestigation' stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation a superior Court in exercise of its Constitutional power, namely, under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct a "State" to get an offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior Court would ordinarily issue such a direction." 37. This Court further referred a decision in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar reported in 2008 (5) SCC 413 and observed therein: (SCC p.415,para 7) "7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under Sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or re-investigation." 38. The plea raised by the accused herein was not for further investigation under Section 173(8) but for re-investigation by some other agency. In the circumstances of this case, the accused had not justified his plea at all for re-investigation or fresh investigation by another agency. On its own, the High Court did not go into that exercise to decide as to whether the investigation was required to be done by any other agency. In the circumstances of this case, the accused had not justified his plea at all for re-investigation or fresh investigation by another agency. On its own, the High Court did not go into that exercise to decide as to whether the investigation was required to be done by any other agency. It required help of DGP level officer and his opinion to decide whether the earlier investigation was done properly or not. We are afraid that was not the task. To decide so was the task of the Court alone and no opinion could have been sought for, particularly, in the circumstances of this case. Nothing seems to have been established which would justify calling for such opinion. However, we are not going into that question as we have already stated earlier. Once the charge sheet was filed, ordinarily it could only be the power of the Court to decide upon its correctness or otherwise." But this Court in V.Lakshmi and others vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Fort. St. George, Chennai-9 and four others reported in 2011 (2) MWN (Cr)122, held that after investigation is over as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Criminal Court is seized of the matter, further investigation can be directed only by judicial order and cannot be by an executive fiat. The relevant paragraph in ''17" reads as follows: "17. Even after receiving the report, while taking cognizance, if the Magistrate thinks fit, by postponing the issue of process against the accused, he can make inquiry by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. That power is available under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This power of reinvestigation lies with the Court and as per the direction of the Court, the police may re-investigate. Therefore, after the investigation stage is over, on the face of it, it is the Court which has to direct re-investigation, since it becomes the judicial power to be exercised by the Court. In other words, after investigation is over as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the criminal court is seized of the matter, the further investigation can be directed only by judicial order and cannot be by an executive fiat". 7. In other words, after investigation is over as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the criminal court is seized of the matter, the further investigation can be directed only by judicial order and cannot be by an executive fiat". 7. In the light of the above said citations and the facts and circumstances of the case, order of reinvestigation by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, which is illegal and unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside. 8. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent dated 16.07.2015 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 28.07.2015 are hereby set aside and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.