JUDGMENT : MD. MUMTAZ KHAN, J. 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated March 30, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangarampur at Buniadpur, Dakshin Dinajpur in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2014. By the impugned order learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated May 14, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur at Buniadpur, Dakshin Dinajpur in GR No. 1101 of 2012 arising out of Kushmandi P.S Case No. 172 dated September 14, 2012 under Section 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code accepting the final report as mistake of facts and discharging the petitioner from the case. The complainant Rajjak Ali/O.P No. 1 lodged a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur at Buniadpur, Dakshin Dinajpur alleging that the petitioners along with BL & L R O, Kushmandi illegally deleted his name from the record of rights in respect of 0.33 decimals of lands appertaining to plot no. 721, khatian No. 742, J.L No. 44, Mouza Bounbari, P.S Kushmandi, District Dakshin Dinajpur which he got from his mother Najimannesa Bewa by a deed bearing no 8784 dated September 1, 1993 and reincorporated the name of his mother and got the property re-sold to the petitioner no. 1 on May 17, 2011. 2. On the basis of the said complaint a Kushmandi P.S Case No. 172/2012 dated September 14, 2012 under Section 420/406/434 of the Indian Penal Code was started. After completion of investigation a final report was submitted before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur at Buniadpur as being mistake of fact and the matter being civil in nature which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the same, complainant preferred revision being Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2014 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangarampur at Buniadpur, Dakshin Dinajpur by the impugned order allowed the said revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed the investigating officer to re-investigate the case and submit a report. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same petitioners have preferred the instant revision. 4. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same petitioners have preferred the instant revision. 4. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the Code of Criminal Procedure has prescribed the power for further investigation and only in exceptional case direction for re-investigation or de novo investigation can be given and that too only by the higher court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in directing for re-investigation especially when there is no such allegation against the investigation officer. He relied upon the decision in the matter of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 in support of his submissions. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the State submitted that Sessions Judge has the power only to direct for further investigation and not re-investigation and as there was no such allegation of the investigating officer so it would have been proper for the learned Sessions Judge to direct for further investigation. He relied upon the decisions in the matter Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 and Chandra Babu @ Moses v. State through Inspector of Police reported in (2015) 8 SCC 774 in support of his submissions. 6. According to the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1, I.O did not investigate the case properly and as such learned Sessions Judge was quite justified in directing for re-investigation. He also relied upon the decision cited by the petitioners. 7. The controversy before this court is whether the learned court below was justified in directing for re-investigation of the case. 8. Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to order for investigation as prescribed under Section 156(1) of the Code. Section 190 of the Code provides that subject to the provisions of chapter XIV of the Code, any Magistrate of the 1st class and any Magistrate of the 2nd class specially empowered in this behalf may take cognizance of any offence upon receipt of a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, upon a police report of such facts or upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer in terms of Section 173 of the Code forward his report to the Magistrate and after receipt of the report, the Magistrate may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding, he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further take cognizance of offence and issue process or he may direct further investigation under sub-Section 3 of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report. So the Magistrate has the power to direct for further investigation only after filing of the police report in terms of section 173(6) of the Code. The Magistrate has no power to direct re-investigation or fresh or de novo investigation. The power to direct reinvestigation or de novo investigation falls in the domain of superior courts, that too in exceptional cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 dealt with the issue with regard to the direction for further investigation, fresh or de novo investigation and reinvestigation. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision is quoted below: “43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct ‘further investigation’, ‘fresh’ or ‘de novo’ and even ‘reinvestigation’. ‘Fresh’, ‘de novo’ and ‘reinvestigation’ are synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the power of transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and with great circumspection.” “51…………………Whether the Magistrate should direct “further investigation” or not is again a matter, which will depend upon the facts of a given case. The learned Magistrate or the higher court of competent jurisdiction would direct “further investigation” or “reinvestigation” as the case may be, on the facts of a given case. The learned Magistrate or the higher court of competent jurisdiction would direct “further investigation” or “reinvestigation” as the case may be, on the facts of a given case. Where the Magistrate can only direct further investigation, the courts of higher jurisdiction can direct further, reinvestigation or even investigation de novo depending on the facts of a given case. It will be the specific order of the court that would determine the nature of investigation…….” 9. In the case at hand the order of the Magistrate in accepting the Final Report was set aside in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the investigation was not done in accordance with law and the investigating officer did not give any importance to the statement of witnesses and accordingly directed the investigating officer to re-investigate the case and submit the report. The only allegation against the investigating officer is that he did not investigate the case in accordance with law and did not give importance to the statement of witnesses on record. There was no allegation of unfairness in investigation. So, in the absence of any allegation against the investigating officer it can be inferred from the above that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has basically directed for further investigation. Accordingly, that part of the impugned order directing investigating officer to reinvestigation the case is modified to the effect that the investigating officer shall carry on further investigation and after further investigation the report shall be submitted before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur at Buniadpur who shall deal with the same in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case nor expressed my opinion relating to the factual aspect of the case. 10. With the above modification the instant revision is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. The interim order of stay, if any, stands vacated. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the court below for information and necessary action. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.