JUDGMENT : (Oral: Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (Munnar) to quash the impugned order dated 19.06.2017 passed by Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut in case crime no. 233 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Police Station Parikshitgarh District Meerut and consequential order dated 23.07.2017 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, order dated 25.07.2017 passed by Superintendent of Police (Gramin), Meerut. 2. By the impugned order dated 19.06.2017, the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut directed the Superintendent of Police, Meerut to get further investigation of the above mentioned case. 3. In compliance of his order, Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut had directed the Superintendent of Police (Gramin), Meerut to get the case investigated by the competent investigating officer under his supervision. Superintendent of Police (Gramin), Meerut had directed Sri Vinod Kumar, S.O. Police Station Parikshitgarh, Meerut to investigate the case. 4. In nutshell facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 25/26-7-2016 complainant Sahid was sleeping with his family in his house wherein at about 2:00 AM accused Anish, Shaukeen, Sameer, Gaffar, Wasim, Tamkeen, Mateen and Imran resident of same village alongwith one unknown accused entered into his house by breaking window and started indiscriminate firing. All the accused are shouting to kill the complainant alongwith his family who caused murder of his wife (Juveda) and son (Ahad). On information of complainant (Sahid) a first information report under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 504, 506 IPC has been lodged at Police Station Parikshitgarh on 26.07.2016 at 3:20 AM. Police started investigation and submitted chargesheet against Sahid @ Badal (complainant) and Iqbal for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 315 and 120-B IPC. In chargesheet, it was narrated that investigation is going on against accused Jabbar, Etkad, Javed and Munnar (petitioner). 5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against Sahid @ Badal and Iqbal on 19.10.2016 and committed the case to court of sessions on 21.12.2016. On 10.04.2017, the investigating officer (inspector), Parikshitgarh Altaf Ansari sent a supplementary case diary to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut wherein it was mentioned that involvement of accused Munnar, Javed, Jabbar and Etkad is false. 5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against Sahid @ Badal and Iqbal on 19.10.2016 and committed the case to court of sessions on 21.12.2016. On 10.04.2017, the investigating officer (inspector), Parikshitgarh Altaf Ansari sent a supplementary case diary to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut wherein it was mentioned that involvement of accused Munnar, Javed, Jabbar and Etkad is false. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut submitted the case diary to the court of sessions with observations that supplementary case diary is neither in form of charge-sheet nor in form of final report. 6. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 7. On the basis of observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 and also on the basis of observation made by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Ahirwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (86) ACC 768, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case, the police officer cannot order for further investigation under Section 173 (8) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), without seeking permission from the Magistrate/court concerned. 8. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State of U.P. contended that police has ample power under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. at any stage to start further investigation in respect of an offence even without seeking permission of the Magistrate/court concerned. 9. To dissolve this controversy, first we intend to deal with the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court in reference to provision of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Section 173 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. 9. To dissolve this controversy, first we intend to deal with the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court in reference to provision of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Section 173 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating- (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation, (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order- for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report- (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statements- recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject- matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub- section (5). (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 sub- section (2)." 10. It must be noted that where provision of statute is clear, plain and simple, and there is no ambiguity in the language of statute, it need not be interpreted otherwise. According to language of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. officer incharge of the police station, if obtains further evidence oral or documentary, he may conduct further investigation even after filing of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. 11. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 22 in Prakash Ahirwar's case (supra), has held as follows: "Therefore, in our opinion it is well established that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report submitted earlier and the police does desire on certain fresh information coming to light to conduct further investigation, the minimum required is that the police should express their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation. " 12. In Vinay Tyagi's case (supra), in para 14, 15, 20 to 23 and 40.6, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "14. " 12. In Vinay Tyagi's case (supra), in para 14, 15, 20 to 23 and 40.6, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "14. After the investigation has been completed by the Investigating Officer and he has prepared a report without unnecessary delay in terms of Section 173 of the Code, he shall forward his report to a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance on a police report. The report so completed should satisfy the requirements stated under clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. Upon receipt of the report, the empowered Magistrate shall proceed further in accordance with law. The Investigating Officer has been vested with some definite powers in relation to the manner in which the report should be completed and it is required that all the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the code accompany the report submitted before the Magistrate, unless some part thereof is excluded by the Investigating Officer in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 173(6) of the Code. 15. A very wide power is vested in the investigating agency to conduct further investigation after it has filed the report in terms of Section 173(2). The legislature has specifically used the expression 'nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate', which unambiguously indicates the legislative intent that even after filing of a report before the court of competent jurisdiction, the Investigating Officer can still conduct further investigation and where, upon such investigation, the officer in charge of a police station gets further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the prescribed form. In other words, the investigating agency is competent to file a supplementary report to its primary report in terms of Section 173(8). The supplementary report has to be treated by the Court in continuation of the primary report and the same provisions of law, i.e., sub-section (2) to sub-section (6) of Section 173 shall apply when the Court deals with such report. 20. Having noticed the provisions and relevant part of the scheme of the Code, now we must examine the powers of the Court to direct investigation. 20. Having noticed the provisions and relevant part of the scheme of the Code, now we must examine the powers of the Court to direct investigation. Investigation can be ordered in varied forms and at different stages. Right at the initial stage of receiving the FIR or a complaint, the Court can direct investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156(1) in exercise of its powers under Section 156(3) of the Code. Investigation can be of the following kinds : (i) Initial Investigation. (ii) Further Investigation. (iii) Fresh or de novo or re-investigation. 21. The initial investigation is the one which the empowered police officer shall conduct in furtherance to registration of an FIR. Such investigation itself can lead to filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code and shall take within its ambit the investigation which the empowered officer shall conduct in furtherance of an order for investigation passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code. 22. 'Further investigation' is where the Investigating Officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed before the Court in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with the Executive. It is the continuation of a previous investigation and, therefore, is understood and described as a 'further investigation'. Scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose is to bring the true facts before the Court even if they are discovered at a subsequent stage to the primary investigation. It is commonly described as 'supplementary report'. 'Supplementary report' would be the correct expression as the subsequent investigation is meant and intended to supplement the primary investigation conducted by the empowered police officer. Another significant feature of further investigation is that it does not have the effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation conducted by the investigating agency. This is a kind of continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the same occurrence incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a 'reinvestigation', 'fresh' or 'de novo' investigation. This is a kind of continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the same occurrence incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a 'reinvestigation', 'fresh' or 'de novo' investigation. 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 chargesheet. 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." 13. In Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 , in paras 15, 16, 17 and 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: " 15..................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 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 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. 18. Sub- section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation, the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report and not fresh report regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation. " 14. In Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. 18. Sub- section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation, the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report and not fresh report regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation. " 14. In Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Ors, (2017) 4 SCC 177 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 30 has held as follows:- "30. This Court also recounted its observations in Ram Lal Narang (supra) to the effect that on the Magistrate taking cognizance upon a police report, the right of the police to further investigate even under the 1898 Code was not exhausted and it could exercise such right often as necessary, when fresh information would come to light. That this proposition was integrated in explicit terms in sub-Section (8) of Section 173 of the new Code, was noticed. The desirability of the police to ordinarily inform the Court and seek its formal permission to make further investigation, when fresh facts come to light, was stressed upon to maintain the independence of the judiciary, the interest of the purity of administration of criminal justice and the interest of the comity of the various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such dispensation. " 15. Finally, in the case of Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2016) 4 SCC 160 , the Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the principle laid down in Rama Chaudhary's (supra) as under:- "21. In this context, we may notice the statutory scheme pertaining to investigation. Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the Police Officer conducting investigation to file a report on completion of the investigation with the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. empowers the office-in-charge to conduct further investigation even after filing of a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. if he obtains further evidence, oral or documentary. Thus, the power of the Police Officer under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is unrestricted. Needless to say, the Magistrate has no power to interfere but it would be appropriate on the part of the investigating officer to inform the Court. It has been so stated in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar." 16. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also discussed the observation made in Vinay Tyagi (supra). 17. Needless to say, the Magistrate has no power to interfere but it would be appropriate on the part of the investigating officer to inform the Court. It has been so stated in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar." 16. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also discussed the observation made in Vinay Tyagi (supra). 17. From perusal of the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, we are of the view that Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., empowers police officer to conduct further investigation even after filing of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., if he obtains further evidence, oral or documentary. Power under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., is unrestricted, only to show regard and respect for the court, investigating officer should inform the court about further investigation. Even without informing the court, investigating officer after further investigation obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward it to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed. Such evidence cannot be discarded by the court/magistrate concerned on the ground that evidence has been collected without informing the court/magistrate concerned. 18. Here, it must be noted that officer incharge of the police station is empowered to do further investigation but he is not empowered to do fresh investigation or re-investigation. Further investigation is a kind of continuation of previous investigation. 19. Neither the investigating officer nor the magistrate has power to conduct or order fresh investigation as has been held in Vinay Tyagi's case (supra). 20. From the perusal of the charge-sheet dated 21.12.2016, it is apparent that investigation is on in reference to accused Jabbar, Etkad, Javed and Munnar (petitioner). 21. It is admitted fact that investigating officer has not forwarded any such report in prescribed form through superior officer of police as provided for under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. provides provision to send report in prescribed form to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance as soon as investigation is completed. Only because investigating officer has submitted chargesheet against some of the accused and investigation is going on against other accused which cannot be said that investigation is completed. 22. In this case, no report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been submitted by police officer in the prescribed form. Investigation is not completed but is going on. Only because investigating officer has submitted chargesheet against some of the accused and investigation is going on against other accused which cannot be said that investigation is completed. 22. In this case, no report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been submitted by police officer in the prescribed form. Investigation is not completed but is going on. So this is not the case of further investigation or re-investigation. This is the case of initial investigation for which neither information to magistrate/court concerned is required nor approval of magistrate/court concerned is required. As per provision of Section 173 (3) of Cr.P.C. during investigation superior officer of police is empowered to direct the officer incharge of police station to make further investigation. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 19.06.2017 passed by Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut in case crime no. 233 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Parikshitgarh District Meerut, and consequential order dated 23.07.2017 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut and order dated 25.07.2017 passed by Superintendent of Police (Gramin), Meerut. 23. In view of above, we find no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed accordingly.