JUDGMENT & ORDER : This criminal petition is directed against the judgment dated 3-10-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2 of 2015 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 26-11-2014 for ordering further investigation of the case. 2. Mr. B. Deb, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Dutta, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor, were heard at length. 3. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh in PRC No. 360 of 2010 seeking further investigation of the case. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition and the controversy involved in the case can be best understood by reproducing below the relevant portions of the impugned judgment: “In this case, while making the FIR, the informant clearly stated that as she and her son went to rescue of Shri Babul Das, the accused persons assaulted her and her son giving slap, blows, lathi blows and kicks and they entered into her house and ransacked the household articles. It was also stated that she had a golden chain in her neck weighing one vori which also went missing. It is thus evident that the informant made a statement as to how she and her son were assaulted and that the golden chain from her neck went missing. She and her witnesses made similar statements to the IO during investigation as their statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC reveals. Consequently, IO did not get any prima facie case of the commission of the offence of outraging the modesty and snatching away of the golden chain by the accused persons. Subsequently, in seeking further investigation, informant stated that she narrated all details as to the outraging the modesty by the accused persons and also about snatching of the golden chain from her neck. Taking into consideration the circumstance, the learned below Court did not find any ground to order further investigation in the case. Before the Court, main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-compliance of Section 173(2)(ii) of the CrPC is itself a ground to allow further investigation. In this regard, learned counsel relied on the citations above referred. But as already shown above, none of the citations squarely covers the different situation of this case. Before the Court, main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-compliance of Section 173(2)(ii) of the CrPC is itself a ground to allow further investigation. In this regard, learned counsel relied on the citations above referred. But as already shown above, none of the citations squarely covers the different situation of this case. So, in the considered opinion of this court, there was nothing wrong in the impugned order requiring any interference by this court. The application is thus rejected and the case is disposed of on contest.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues with vehemence and attempts to persuade me to hold that the above decision is wrong, but I am not at all impressed by his submissions. The tone and tenor of the FIR make it explicit the fundamental case of the petitioner as evident from the FIR that the case could be registered only for the offences punishable U/s 147/148/447/325/427/506 IPC; the IO of the case rightly did so. I hasten to say that some of those offences may not even be applicable on closer scrutiny. But to order further investigation on the basis of the original allegations made in the FIR to make out a case of outraging the modesty of a woman is unacceptable; the attempt is merely to improve the case and is an after-thought. In other words, the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman cannot fit in to the scheme of the allegations originally made in the FIR. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the IO did not charge the accused for robbery, which is punishable U/s 392, though it is quite possible that same could be made out from the FIR. The petitioner can always approach the trial court to alter the charge accordingly, if so advised. If and when an application to that effect is made, the trial court will consider the same in accordance with law. As far as further investigation is concerned, though such power is there, such sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation in respect of the same incident, giving rise to more cognizance consequent upon the making of new allegations. After all, further investigation should ordinarily be confined to the scope of the case set up in the FIR. 5. After all, further investigation should ordinarily be confined to the scope of the case set up in the FIR. 5. Coming now to the grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for not communicating the action taken by the IO of the case to the petitioner U/s 173(2)(ii) CrPC, it is true that compliance with this provision is mandatory in nature; the IO should have complied with the same. However, violation of mandatory provision per se cannot give rise annulling the act of commission or omission complained of unless it could be shown that prejudice or failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. This forms a part of criminal jurisprudence and is incorporated in Section 465, CrPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by reason of non-compliance with Section 173(2)(ii) CrPC. 6. There is thus no merit in this criminal petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Much time has unnecessarily been wasted because of this meritless and avoidable criminal petition. The trial court shall now expeditiously proceed with the trial and dispose of the same without unnecessary delay. Interim stay, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.