ORDER : This petition has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.4, 6, 5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 3.5.2016 in C.C.No.5577/2012 passed by IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. 2. Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Prasanna Kumar P. appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ravi B.Naik for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3. 4. The gist of the complaint is that on 2.5.2011 in the middle of 2005 the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had traded off an ordinary stone as a priceless ruby and petitioner No.3 had warned respondent No.2 not to disclose about it to any person till respondent No.2 has attained the age of 61. It is alleged that respondent No.2 kept the stone in his puja room in a bag and after he attained 61 years’ of age, he opened the bag and found that the stone was not a ruby but an ordinary stone. Respondent No.2 alleged that he had handed over cheques worth Rs.3,18,00,000/- and also sold four flats to accused No.1 and petitioners No.2 and 3 herein. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered in Crime No.217/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 471 and 506 of IPC. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance and accused No.1 approached this Court for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Petition No.4605/2012. This Court by order dated 30.08.2013 quashed the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, complainant-respondent No.2 approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No.1381/2014 and the said petition was allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the learned Magistrate to dispose of in terms of the order passed therein. Subsequently, on 21.7.2015 complainant forwarded a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru with similar allegations. Being aggrieved by the same, complainant-respondent No.2 approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No.1381/2014 and the said petition was allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the learned Magistrate to dispose of in terms of the order passed therein. Subsequently, on 21.7.2015 complainant forwarded a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru with similar allegations. On the basis of the said complaint, an application was filed before the learned Magistrate to permit further investigation and the learned Magistrate permitted for further investigation and on further investigation the Investigating Officer submitted his additional report on 5.3.2016 after five years from the date of filing of the first charge sheet. By order dated 3.5.2016, the impugned order came to be passed and therein accused Nos.3 to 8 have been arrayed as an accused along with accused No.1. Challenging the same, petitioners No.4, 6 and 5 are before this Court. 5. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the impugned order of the trial Court issuing process to the petitioners is not sustainable in law. There is no allegation made against the petitioners-accused with reference to criminal conspiracy against the petitioners. It is his further submission that the allegations made in the complaint and the documents produced in support of the same indicates that the matter is of a civil nature. Without looking to the said aspects, the trial Court has proceeded to issue summons to the petitioners-accused. It is his further submission that a civil suit has been filed and the said suit has already been dismissed. The civil rights and liabilities have been twisted and intended to use the same on criminal side which amounts to nothing but abuse of process of law. It is his further submission that the cognizance taken is not in accordance with law. It is his further submission that there is inordinate delay in filing the additional charge sheet. It is his further submission that the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence under Section 173(3) of Cr.P.C. only on the investigation by the Investigating Officer in pursuance of further oral or documentary evidence was made available. The learned Magistrate has no power to interfere with and once already cognizance has been taken and the process has been issued as against the petitioners-accused, then the Court cannot relegate to earlier part and take the cognizance. The learned Magistrate has no power to interfere with and once already cognizance has been taken and the process has been issued as against the petitioners-accused, then the Court cannot relegate to earlier part and take the cognizance. It is his further submission that the criminal procedure does not preclude the investigating agency to make further investigation after filing of the charge sheet. Normally the prosecution informant or accused cannot claim further investigation as a matter of right except that of Investigating Officer or the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station. The course of action which has been taken up by the learned Magistrate was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. In order to substantiate his said contention he has relied upon the decision in the case of Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 160 and also the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Somdutta Ganguly Vs. State of Karnataka by Airport Police Station, Bengaluru, and another in Criminal Petition No.4105/2010. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued and submitted that as per Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. it does not preclude the Investigating Agency to further investigate the matter and file the additional charge sheet. It is his further submission that there is a legislative power available for the Investigating Officer to investigate and file the charge sheet or additional charge sheet at any stage of the proceedings. He further submitted that by taking into consideration the power entrusted under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., further investigation has been conducted and the additional charge sheet has been filed. It is his further submission that accused No.1 had approached this Court and the proceedings have been quashed. Subsequently, the complainant has approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has remanded the matter by holding that it is a mixed question of fact and law. Now at this juncture petitioners-accused cannot contend that there is no material as against the petitioners-accused. It is his further submission that the learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind and with a view to take the cognizance of the offence he found that there is a prima facie case made out as against the petitioners-accused and as such the summons have been issued. It is his further submission that the learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind and with a view to take the cognizance of the offence he found that there is a prima facie case made out as against the petitioners-accused and as such the summons have been issued. In order to substantiate his arguments he has relied upon the decision in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 182. It is his further submission that the petitioners-accused have not made out any good ground so as to interfere with the orders of the trial Court. The orders of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. The learned High Court Government Pleader also by substantiating the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.4605/2012. This Court by order dated 30.08.2013 quashed the proceedings. Being aggrieved of the same the complainant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.No.1381/2014 and the Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 23.7.2014 has passed the following order: “We find that the present case involves disputed questions of fact. Legal proceedings are filed by the parties against each other. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings particularly when the charge-sheet is filed. Hence, we set aside the impugned order to the extent it quashes the charge-sheet filed against second respondent in CC No.5577 of 2012. Special Leave (Criminal) No.1381 of 2014 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. We also make it clear that so far the prayer for transfer of the criminal cases filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the second respondent to the Court where CC No.5577 of 2012 is pending, i.e., in the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, is concerned, we are not inclined to grant that prayer.” 9. We also make it clear that so far the prayer for transfer of the criminal cases filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the second respondent to the Court where CC No.5577 of 2012 is pending, i.e., in the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, is concerned, we are not inclined to grant that prayer.” 9. On going through the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has come to the conclusion that the case involves a disputed questions of fact and as such the Court has come to the conclusion that the matter requires reconsideration and the matter has been remitted back to the learned Magistrate. 10. On going through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that arises for my consideration in this case is; “Whether the Court below is right in taking the cognizance and issuing the process as against the petitioners-accused are concerned?” 11. It is well settled proposition of law in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that, though investigating agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake further investigation desirably after informing Court thereof, before which it had submitted its report and obtaining its approval, no such power is available therefore to Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report, process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto. At that stage, neither Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by complainant/informant direct further investigation. Such a course would be open only on request of investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 774 , wherein at paragraph Nos.47, 48 and 49 it has been observed as under: “47. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 774 , wherein at paragraph Nos.47, 48 and 49 it has been observed as under: “47. On an overall survey of the pronouncements of this Court on the scope and purport of Section 173(8) of the Code and the consistent trend of explication thereof, we are thus disposed to hold that though the investigating agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake further investigation desirably after informing the court thereof, before which it had submitted its report and obtaining its approval, no such power is available therefor to the learned Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report, process has been issued and the accused has entered appearance in response thereto. At that stage, neither the learned Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant can direct further investigation. Such a course would be open only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand. 48. The unamended and the amended subsection (8) of Section 173 of the Code if read in juxtaposition, would overwhelmingly attest that by the latter, the investigating agency/officer alone has been authorised to conduct further investigation without limiting the stage of the proceedings relatable thereto. This power qua the investigating agency/officer is thus legislatively intended to be available at any stage of the proceedings. The recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st Report which manifestly heralded the amendment, significantly had limited its proposal to the empowerment of the investigating agency alone. 49. In contradistinction, Sections 156, 190, 200, 202 and 204 CrPC clearly outline the powers of the Magistrate and the courses open for him to chart in the matter of directing investigation, taking of cognizance, framing of charge, etc. 49. In contradistinction, Sections 156, 190, 200, 202 and 204 CrPC clearly outline the powers of the Magistrate and the courses open for him to chart in the matter of directing investigation, taking of cognizance, framing of charge, etc. Though the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) at the precognizance stage even after a charge-sheet or a closure report is submitted, once cognizance is taken and the accused person appears pursuant thereto, he would be bereft of any competence to direct further investigation either suo motu or acting on the request or prayer of the complainant/informant. The direction for investigation by the Magistrate under Section 202, while dealing with a complaint, though is at a post-cognizance stage, it is in the nature of an inquiry to derive satisfaction as to whether the proceedings initiated ought to be furthered or not. Such a direction for investigation is not in the nature of further investigation, as contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Code. If the power of the Magistrate, in such a scheme envisaged by CrPC to order further investigation even after the cognizance is taken, the accused persons appear and charge is framed, is acknowledged or approved, the same would be discordant with the state of law, as enunciated by this Court and also the relevant layout of CrPC adumbrated hereinabove. Additionally had it been the intention of the legislature to invest such a power, in our estimate, Section 173(8) CrPC would have been worded accordingly to accommodate and ordain the same having regard to the backdrop of the incorporation thereof. In a way, in view of the three options open to the Magistrate, after a report is submitted by the police on completion of the investigation, as has been amongst authoritatively enumerated in Bhagwant Singh [Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267], the Magistrate, in both the contingencies, namely; when he takes cognizance of the offence or discharges the accused, would be committed to a course, whereafter though the investigating agency may for good reasons inform him and seek his permission to conduct further investigation, he suo motu cannot embark upon such a step or take that initiative on the request or prayer made by the complainant/informant. Not only such power to the Magistrate to direct further investigation suo motu or on the request or prayer of the complainant/informant after cognizance is taken and the accused person appears, pursuant to the process, issued or is discharged is incompatible with the statutory design and dispensation, it would even otherwise render the provisions of Sections 311 and 319 CrPC, whereunder any witness can be summoned by a court and a person can be issued notice to stand trial at any stage, in a way redundant. Axiomatically, thus the impugned decision annulling the direction of the learned Magistrate for further investigation is unexceptional and does not merit any interference. Even otherwise on facts, having regard to the progression of the developments in the trial, and more particularly, the delay on the part of the informant in making the request for further investigation, it was otherwise not entertainable as has been rightly held by the High Court.” 12. On going through the said decisions and on perusal of the records, though further investigation has been taken by investigating agency on the basis of the complaint said to have been filed on 21.7.2015 and on the said complaint the learned Magistrate cannot empower the investigating agency for further investigation and on the basis of the said order the investigating agency filed the additional charge sheet and on the basis of the said additional charge sheet the impugned order dated 3.5.2016 has been passed. 13. On going through the said order it indicates that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 originally under Sections 420, 471, 406, 506 of IPC and subsequently accused No.2 expired and case as against him was abated and the order also indicates that the charge has already been prepared as against accused No.1 and summons was also issued to the complainant. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint, further investigation has been done by exercising power under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the additional charge sheet has been filed as against accused Nos.3 to 8. Though the permission has been obtained, by going through the letter and spirit of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., it indicates that the Investigating Officer alone has been authorized to conduct further investigation without limiting the stage of the proceedings relatable thereto. Though the permission has been obtained, by going through the letter and spirit of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., it indicates that the Investigating Officer alone has been authorized to conduct further investigation without limiting the stage of the proceedings relatable thereto. This power qua investigating agency/officer is thus legislatively intended to be available at any stage of proceedings. But on going through the said records it is not the investigating agency suo motu has further investigated the case, but the said investigation has been done only on the basis of the complaint which has been given as stated above. 14. Under such circumstances, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the additional charge sheet or additional information filed by the agency appears to be against the proposition of law. No doubt, by going through the procedure laid down in Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has also not only having power to direct further investigation suo motu or on request or prayer of the complainant/informant after cognizance is taken, if accused appears in pursuance of issuance of process or is discharged is incompatible with the provisions of law, much less to the complainant to exercise power to bring the material on record and if any such material is brought on record during the course of evidence, then under such circumstances, the only remedy left open for the learned Magistrate is to exercise the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. whereunder any witness can be summoned by exercising the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and also against whom some incriminating material is there, can be arrayed as an accused as contemplated under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by giving him full opportunity. The learned Magistrate not kept into view all these aspects, has simply permitted for further investigation, has taken the cognizance and issued the summons. 15. In the background of the discussions held by me above, I am of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted and issuance of summons by the learned Magistrate is nothing but abuse of process of law. 16. In that light, the petition is allowed and the order dated 3.5.2016 is quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned. 15. In the background of the discussions held by me above, I am of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted and issuance of summons by the learned Magistrate is nothing but abuse of process of law. 16. In that light, the petition is allowed and the order dated 3.5.2016 is quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned. But however, liberty is left open to the learned Magistrate and complainant, if any evidence is adduced during the course of trial, it is at liberty to exercise the power as contemplated under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. IA No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.