ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader, who takes notice for respondent – State. Perused the order impugned in this petition. 2. The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the III Addl. JMFC Court at Mangaluru in CC No.2097/2016 u/s. 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has filed an application praying for a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, to conduct further investigation in relation to the role of some of the additional accused persons and to file fresh charge sheet against them also. As many as 14 names have been given by the defacto complainant as additional accused persons. In the said application, in so many sentences, it is stated that the Police have not properly investigated the matter and arrested the additional accused persons. However, the committal court was of the opinion that except stating that further investigation has to be directed, no additional materials have been placed before the court to come to the conclusion that the Police have conducted investigation in a wrong manner. 4. Of course, some civil disputes have been referred to by the learned counsel before this court in order to connect the additional accused persons. The above said application was seriously objected by accused Nos.1, 3 to 7 by filing objections and prosecution also did not ask for any further investigation in this connection. 5. The learned Magistrate after going through the entire materials on record, has come to the conclusion that no additional materials are available apart from the charge sheet papers before the court except the allegations made in the application. Therefore, the trial Court has rejected the said application. The trial Court has also made observation that the defacto complainant can produce sufficient material while recording of the evidence so that, the court can consider the said evidence and if necessary can invoke the provisions u/s.319 of Cr.P.C. to call any other person as an accused wherein the court finds that they are also involved in commission of such offence. Of course, there is no impediment for this court even to order for reinvestigation or further investigation by exercising inherent power u/s.482 of Cr.P.C.. Of course, there is no impediment for this court even to order for reinvestigation or further investigation by exercising inherent power u/s.482 of Cr.P.C.. However, the committal Court itself has stated that no other sufficient materials have been placed before the court for the purpose of ordering investigation, except the allegations in the application, this court on the basis of mere allegations in the application cannot order for reinvestigation. The powers u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to order for reinvestigation or further investigation shall be very sparingly exercised when the court is satisfactorily convinced about the existence of such circumstances, to order for reinvestigation or further investigation. 6. Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. in fact empowers the Police themselves to further investigate into the matter and file the additional report to the court. Therefore, it is not the prerogative of the committal Court to exercise such power for the purpose of directing the Police to investigate the matter. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2017) 4 SCC 177 between Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others has held at Head Note A that “Ss.173(8), 156(3) and 202 of Cr.P.C. – Relative scope of role and powers of Magistrate under, explained – Power of Magistrate to direct further investigation after cognizance has been taken/process issued or accused has been discharged – Scope and limitations – Need for request for further investigation by Investigating Agency before further investigation can be directed u/s.173(8) – Absence of power of Magistrate to direct further investigation either suo motu or on prayer made by complaint/informant, once cognizance has been taken/process issued or accused has been discharged.” In this decision, the court has elaborately considered the powers of the Magistrate. Even otherwise, the learned Magistrate has also relied upon various rulings in his order to come to the conclusion that further investigation u/s.173(8) of Cr.P.C. cannot be ordered by the Magistrate without any materials on record to show that the investigation conducted by the Police was tainted, on the other hand, the trial Court has given ample opportunity to the defacto complaint to produce evidence at the time of recording of the evidence so as to convince the court that other persons are also involved in the said case so as to enable the court to pass appropriate order under such provision of law. 8. 8. Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Petition, IA No.1/2018 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.