ORDER : Criminal Misc. Application No. 15602 of 2019 1. An apt accused, who has filed so many litigations before so many Courts, may be within his right, filed this application praying following reliefs: “7(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the investigation conducted by the Police after filing of the Closure Report dated 02.06.2014 and the charge-sheet culminated into Criminal Case No. 33212 of 2019 arising out of the FIR being M. Case No. 03 of 2003 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat, under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120(B), 114 and 34 of IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. 7(C) Your Lordships may be pleased, pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 33212 of 2019 pending before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Surat.” 2. However, the very petitioner has prayed for very same relief by way of a substantive petition being Special Criminal Application No. 5107 of 2018, which came to be withdrawn on 26.8.2018 from this Court. The details about sameness of the prayers and the relief claimed would be dealt with later on. 3. Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior counsel for Mr. Chirag Upadhyay, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in the offence registered against co-accused, there was a Closure Report, in respect of applicant, filed on 2.6.2014 and unless that Closure Report is adjudicated, the police cannot of their own direct further investigation without the leave of the Court. He has further submitted that the original first informant vide Special Criminal Application No. 2339 of 2018 requested this Court for further investigation into his complaint and act in furtherance of report dated 13.3.2012 and 24.11.2014 ensuring a fair and proper investigation in consonance with and as provided under Section 170 of the Code at the earliest. This Court vide an order dated 20.4.2018, disposed of the said petition on the statement being made by concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) ‘F’ Division, who was present before the Court that further investigation is going on. However, according to his submission, the said order came to be challenged by the applicant before the Supreme Court. This Court vide an order dated 20.4.2018, disposed of the said petition on the statement being made by concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) ‘F’ Division, who was present before the Court that further investigation is going on. However, according to his submission, the said order came to be challenged by the applicant before the Supreme Court. Drawing attention to the order of the Supreme Court, which is at page No. 76, he submitted that when Supreme Court has directed the consideration of Closure Report, further investigation could not have been continued and charge-sheet could not have been filed against the applicant. It is further submitted that Supreme Court has directed the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Surat to consider the objection and decide whether any further investigation is required or not. According to his submission, the complainant was not allowing the matter to get proceeded which is apparent from the filing of Special Criminal Application No. 11481 of 2019 praying for transfer of proceedings from Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging bias against him. According to his submission, this Court had directed to decide upon the report in accordance with law in view of Supreme Court order dated 5.9.2018. He has further submitted that without waiting for the outcome of the Closure Report, the Police Authority has submitted the charge-sheet pursuant to further investigation conducted by them. According to the submission of learned senior counsel the filing of the charge-sheet pursuant to further investigation prior to the adjudication of Closure Report is in violation of Supreme Court order dated 5.9.2018 and it is contemptuous. According to his submission, therefore, the present petition came to be filed praying to quash and set aside the investigation conducted by the police after filing of the Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 and the Charge-sheet culminated into Criminal Case No. 33212 of 2019. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Court issued notice on 14.8.2019 in the present petition recording as under: “Considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1125 of 2018 annexed at Annexure J, it appears that the concerned Investigating agency has filed charge-sheet, despite the fact that hearing of closure report was going on and pending. Therefore, present application deserves consideration. Notice returnable on 26.08.2019. Learned APP wavies service of notice on behalf of respondent-State. To be listed on the top of the board.” 4. Therefore, present application deserves consideration. Notice returnable on 26.08.2019. Learned APP wavies service of notice on behalf of respondent-State. To be listed on the top of the board.” 4. However, vide an order dated 16.11.2019, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, passed an order below Closure report as under: “In view of the fact that charge-sheet has been filed by Criminal Case No. 33212 of 2019 against Vasantbhai Haribhai Gajera, this report does not survive. Hence, disposed of.” 5. The said order passed by concerned Magistrate is challenged by preferring Criminal Misc. Application No. 23874 of 2019. His primary contention is that without Closure Report being adjudicated, despite Supreme Court’s direction, charge-sheet has come to be filed pursuant to further investigation carried out and it should be quashed. According to his submission, on filing of the charge-sheet pursuant to further investigation, the learned Magistrate has disposed of Closure Report by one line ‘non reasoned order.’ He further submitted that the Police Authority of their own could not have further investigated the case without permission of the Court. For the proposition, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC Online SC 1346. Drawing attention to Para No. 40.6, which is reproduced as under: “40.6. It has been a procedure of propriety that the police has to seek permission of the court to continue “further investigation” and file supplementary charge-sheet. 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.” xxx xxx xxx 48. What ultimately is the aim or significance of the expression “fair and proper investigation” in criminal jurisprudence? It has a twin purpose: Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law; secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. Once these twin paradigms of fair investigation are satisfied, there will be the least requirement for the court of law to interfere with the investigation, much less quash the same, or transfer it to another agency. Bringing out the truth by fair and investigative means in accordance with law would essentially repel the very basis of an unfair, tainted investigation or cases of false implication. Bringing out the truth by fair and investigative means in accordance with law would essentially repel the very basis of an unfair, tainted investigation or cases of false implication. Thus, it is inevitable for a court of law to pass a specific order as to the fate of the investigation, which in its opinion is unfair, tainted and in violation of the settled principles of investigative canons. 49. Now, we may examine another significant aspect which is how the provisions of Section 173(8) have been understood and applied by the courts and investigating agencies. It is true that though there is no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code to conduct “further investigation” or file supplementary report with the leave of the court, the investigating agencies have not only understood but also adopted it as a legal practice to seek permission of the courts to conduct “further investigation” and file “supplementary report” with the leave of the court. The courts, in some of the decisions, have also taken a similar view. The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court to conduct “further investigation” and/or to file a “supplementary report” will have to be read into, and is a necessary implication of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio will fully come to the aid of such interpretation as the matters which are understood and implemented for a long time, and such practice that is supported by law should be accepted as part of the interpretative process. 50. Such a view can be supported from two different points of view: firstly, through the doctrine of precedent, as aforenoticed, since quite often the courts have taken such a view, and, secondly, the investigating agencies which have also so understood and applied the principle. The matters which are understood and implemented as a legal practice and are not opposed to the basic rule of law would be good practice and such interpretation would be permissible with the aid of doctrine of contemporanea expositio. Even otherwise, to seek such leave of the court would meet the ends of justice and also provide adequate safeguard against a suspect/accused. 51. We have already noticed that there is no specific embargo upon the power of the learned Magistrate to direct “further investigation” on presentation of a report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. Even otherwise, to seek such leave of the court would meet the ends of justice and also provide adequate safeguard against a suspect/accused. 51. We have already noticed that there is no specific embargo upon the power of the learned Magistrate to direct “further investigation” on presentation of a report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. Any other approach or interpretation would be in contradiction to the very language of Section 173(8) and the scheme of the Code for giving precedence to proper administration of criminal justice. The settled principles of criminal jurisprudence would support such approach, particularly when in terms of Section 190 of the Code, the Magistrate is the competent authority to take cognizance of an offence. It is the Magistrate who has to decide whether on the basis of the record and documents produced, an offence is made out or not, and if made out, what course of law should be adopted in relation to committal of the case to the court of competent jurisdiction or to proceed with the trial himself. In other words, it is the judicial conscience of the Magistrate which has to be satisfied with reference to the record and the documents placed before him by the investigating agency, in coming to the appropriate conclusion in consonance with the principles of law. It will be a travesty of justice, if the court cannot be permitted to direct “further investigation” to clear its doubt and to order the investigating agency to further substantiate its charge-sheet. The satisfaction of the learned Magistrate is a condition precedent to commencement of further proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction. 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. 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. 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. In this regard, we may refer to the observations made by this Court in Sivanmoorthy vs. State, (2010) 12 SCC 29 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 295.” It is submitted that further investigation carried out without the leave of the Court and the charge-sheet filed is required to be quashed. 6. He has further submitted that in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the Larger Bench of it, opined that, to seek such leave of the Court before further investigation, would meet the ends of justice and also provide adequate safeguard against a suspect/accused. He further submitted that once the investigation is concluded and charge-sheet is filed, only Magistrate has power to decide on further investigation and not by the police. According to him, in this case, a charge-sheet has also come to be filed earlier against co-accused. However, he has submitted that against the present applicant vide report dated 2.6.2014, a Closure Report came to be filed. Therefore, it is submitted that police would not have further investigated it without the leave of the Court. If any further investigation is conducted without leave of the Court, it is required to be quashed and set aside as it being illegal. He further submitted that the order directing fresh investigation as ordered by the High Court vide order dated 20.4.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2339 of 2019 is quashed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, he has requested to quash the further investigation carried out by the Investigating Authority subsequent to Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 and the filing of the charge-sheet vide Criminal Case No. 33212 of 2019 in respect of FIR being M. Case No. 3 of 2003 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat. 7. As against that Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 which is at page No. 266 of the compilation along with affidavit in-reply, is filed pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned 5th Ad-Hoc, Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012. 7. As against that Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 which is at page No. 266 of the compilation along with affidavit in-reply, is filed pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned 5th Ad-Hoc, Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012. Drawing attention to the said report, he has pointed out that the conclusion arrived at, in the said report, filed by ACP ‘E’ Division, Surat City, is lacking in material details, as also incomplete and not inquiring into required facts. Drawing attention to a communication dated 20.8.2014, addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Surat by Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Surat, it was pointed out that, the Closure Report filed by Mr. Dudhat, is ignoring the statements of the witnesses recorded by earlier Investigating Officer for what they have said before it and subsequently recorded the statements of those witnesses as additional statements including that of the applicant-accused. In the said communication, shortcomings and the irregularities/illegalities were pointed out to the Commissioner of Police recommending the punitive action against concerned ACP, Mr. Dudhat, who submitted Closure Report for his serious negligence in duty investigating into the offence in its true perspective. Though, it may not be a part of investigation papers, the said correspondence in between the superior officers is with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has also by way of separate compilation produced the same and copy of compilation is also furnished to the learned advocate for the applicant, as also the Additional Public Prosecutor. Pursuant to the said communication, dated 20.8.2014, the Commissioner of Police, recommended to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, for initiation of punitive action against the then ACP, Mr. Dudhat, who has submitted the Closure Report dated 2.6.2014. 8. Not only that, according to submission of Mr. Mangukiya, vide a communication dated 5.11.2014, from the Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chief Court, Surat, informed the Court that though the earlier Investigating Officers have concluded that there appears sufficient material against the applicant, Mr. Dudhat, the then ACP ignoring that conclusion submitted the Closure Report. It was also pointed out to the learned Magistrate that for reaching that conclusion, Mr. Dudhat, has not in fact conducted any investigation into it or obtained any material thereof. Dudhat, the then ACP ignoring that conclusion submitted the Closure Report. It was also pointed out to the learned Magistrate that for reaching that conclusion, Mr. Dudhat, has not in fact conducted any investigation into it or obtained any material thereof. In short, according to the submission of Mr. Mangukiya, not only the higher officers were informed about the shortfalls and shortcomings into the Closure Report, ignoring earlier investigation, came to be filed by the ACP, Mr. Dudhat, Court was also informed about the same. Thereafter also, further correspondence in between the higher officers ensued but ultimately, the Commissioner of Police directed further investigation into the offence by an order dated 5.1.2015 and directed it to be conducted through ACP ‘F’ Division under the direct supervision of Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Surat. Not only that, it was further directed to submit supervision note to Additional Commissioner of Police, Range-II by Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Surat. He further submitted that by communication dated 26.1.2015, ACP ‘F’ Division, Surat, who took up further investigation at the instance of Commissioner of Police, Surat, requesting, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chief Court, Surat, providing papers of further investigation carried out by ACP ‘E’ Division i.e. by Mr. Dudhat as they were required for the purpose of further investigation pursuant to an order of Commissioner of Police, be considered as seeking leave of the Court for further investigation. 9. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has, therefore, submitted that not only the Investigating Agency is empowered to further investigate the case of their own, they have already brought it to the notice of the concerned Court that the Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 is ignoring the earlier conclusion arrived at, by the earlier Investigating Officers and without carrying out practically any further investigation into it by collecting any further material. Therefore, he has submitted that further investigation carried out by Investigating Agency is perfectly justified and within their right. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that as coming out from the communication inter-se, the investigation carried out by ACP ‘E’ Division, Mr. Dudhat, is nothing but a fraud and therefore, further investigation ordered by the Commissioner of Police is justifiable. Mr. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that as coming out from the communication inter-se, the investigation carried out by ACP ‘E’ Division, Mr. Dudhat, is nothing but a fraud and therefore, further investigation ordered by the Commissioner of Police is justifiable. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has further pointed out that vide report dated 31.05.2018 filed, further investigation taken over by ACP ‘F’ Division, communication was made to the concerned Court how and in what manner the offences committed by the applicant narrating it in detail and showing that the applicant is not cooperating with the further investigation conducted by police. 10. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that this application filed by the applicant is required to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material fact. To elaborate this contention, he has pointed out that vide Special Criminal Application No. 5107 of 2018, the very applicant prayed for the very same relief as could be seen from the prayers made in it, vide page 155 of the compilation following prayers are made: “(A) To allow this petition. (B) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the orders of further investigation passed by (1) Police Authority dated 5.1.2015 (Annexure-A Colly) and (2) order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No. 46/2012 in connection with FIR being M. Case No. 3 of 2003 dated 26.2.2003 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat and charge-sheet No. 25/2004. (C) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the FIR being M. Case No. 3 of 2003 dated 26.2.2003 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat and charge-sheet No. 25/2004 culminated into Criminal Case No. 1912 of 2004 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay orders of further investigation passed against the petitioner by (1) Police Authority dated 5.1.2015 (Annexure-A Colly) and (2) order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012 in connection with FIR being M. Case No. 3 of 2003 dated 26.2.2003 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat and charge-sheet No. 25/2004. (E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, respondents be directed not to submit any supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner and also not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. (F) To pass such other and further orders as deemed fit, just and proper by this Hon’ble Court.” 11. He has further submitted that by the petition being Special Criminal Application No. 5107 of 2018, the applicant had prayed for quashing and setting aside order passed by the Commissioner of Police dated 5.1.2015 directing further investigation into the offence on being satisfied that the Closure Report filed by earlier officer is nothing but a fraud. Over and above that, if prayer in the said earlier petition is looked into, they have also prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 18.12.2012 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has pointed out that if closure report itself is seen, it is with regard to the further investigation into an offence as ordered by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012. Drawing attention of the Court to prayers made in this application, he has submitted that though prayer is couched in it differently but it is praying for the very same relief which was sought for in Special Criminal Application No. 5107 of 2018. Drawing attention to the para-5 of the application, he has submitted that the applicant has not disclosed filing of Special Criminal Application No. 5107 of 2018 claiming very same relief. Therefore, he has submitted that on this ground alone, this application is required to be rejected. 12. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that being an accused, the applicant has no locus-standi to prefer such application challenging outcome of further investigation subsequent to Closure Report. According to his submission, filing of a Closure Report will also not empower the accused to support the same even before the Court of Magistrate. In short, the submission is that so far as Closure Report is concerned, whether to accept it or not only the person required to be heard is the complainant alone. Therefore, he has submitted that this application be rejected on the ground of suppression of material fact, as also on merit. 13. Ms. In short, the submission is that so far as Closure Report is concerned, whether to accept it or not only the person required to be heard is the complainant alone. Therefore, he has submitted that this application be rejected on the ground of suppression of material fact, as also on merit. 13. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP pointed out that after the Commissioner of Police being satisfied about shortcomings in the investigation in the nature of fraud committed by the then ACP in filing Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 ignoring the material already available on record, a conscious decision was taken by the Commissioner of Police to order further investigation vide order dated 5.1.2015. She has further submitted that even for coming to that conclusion of filing Closure Report, no documents were got examined by the Handwriting Expert from the FSL by Mr. Dudhat, the then ACP, who submitted Closure Report. She has further submitted that during the course of investigation, the disputed documents have been examined by the handwriting expert of the FSL and it is part of an investigation. Relying on a decision in the case of Narendra G. Goel vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (6) SCC 65 , she has submitted that accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation or further investigation. It is further submitted that therefore, accused cannot obstruct further investigation on any ground. She has further submitted that after the Commissioner of Police, Surat is being satisfied that incorrect, inappropriate and ignoring conclusion of investigation arrived at by earlier Investigating Officer and the material, ACP Mr. Dudhat had submitted Closure Report which was not in accordance with law and as such a fraud calling for punitive action also, an order for further investigation came to be passed. She has further submitted that by various correspondences, even the Court concerned was intimated about shortfalls of the investigation carried out by ACP, Mr. Dudhat in filing Closure Report, as also decision of carrying out further investigation communicated to the concerned Magistrate. According to submission of Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP, as such, it is not mandated by any law to seek previous permission from the concerned Magistrate before taking over further investigation. Dudhat in filing Closure Report, as also decision of carrying out further investigation communicated to the concerned Magistrate. According to submission of Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP, as such, it is not mandated by any law to seek previous permission from the concerned Magistrate before taking over further investigation. She has further submitted that if the contention of the applicant is to be believed that after closure report is filed by any police officer, the Investigating Agency or the State has no right to order further investigation would lead to a situation that some unscrupulous accused may join hands with the Investigating Officer and may sabotage the trial against them. Therefore, she has submitted that the application filed by the applicant be rejected. She has further submitted that so far as suppression of material facts is concerned, for the very same relief, earlier petition came to be withdrawn and therefore, this application subsequently filed without disclosing that may not be entertained. 14. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, it is clear that though the offence in the present case registered in the year 2003, for the one or other reasons, trial has yet not commenced in the case, though first charge-sheet came to be filed against two of the accused in the year 2004. At this stage, it may not be necessary to go into who is responsible for the delay. The parties are at liberty to invoke their statutory right whatever available to them. But they are always expected to go before the court with clean hands. 15. Taking up the argument of Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate, that this application should be dismissed for suppression of material facts about preferring Special Criminal Application No. 5107 of 2018 praying for the very same relief, the prayers made in that petition as mentioned herein above is looked into, despite very order of Commissioner of Police dated 5.1.2015, by which, further investigation was ordered as also the order passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Surat, in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012 dated 18.12.2012 was also challenged pursuant to which Closure Report is filed. Here in the present case also what is prayed is quashing of the investigation conducted by the police after closure report dated 2.6.2014 and the charge-sheet pursuant thereto. The closure report dated 2.6.2014 came to be filed by ACP Mr. Here in the present case also what is prayed is quashing of the investigation conducted by the police after closure report dated 2.6.2014 and the charge-sheet pursuant thereto. The closure report dated 2.6.2014 came to be filed by ACP Mr. Dudhat pursuant to an order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012 where he submitted closure report dated 2.6.2014. After the closure report submitted by ACP Mr. Dudhat, found to be incorrect calling for punitive action against him, ignoring the earlier investigation, led to passing of an order dated 5.1.2015 by the Commissioner of Police, Surat to order further investigation into an offence. The petitioner had in earlier petition challenged the order of further investigation passed by the Revisional Court pursuant, to which, closure report dated 2.6.2014 came to be filed having realized that it is nothing but an incomplete maneuvered and illegal report submitted which necessitated further investigation. After closure report dated 2.6.2014, further investigation carried out by the police authority only after order passed by the Commissioner of Police dated 5.1.2015. Thus, what was prayed in earlier petition is the one and same which is prayed here in this present application, that too, without disclosing the same in this petition. As such, the applicant is liable to be imposed heavy cost for misuse of the process of law. Further, matter does not end there. The very said petition came to be withdrawn on 28.6.2018. 16. So any challenge to the further investigation pursuant to an order dated 5.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat, after the closure report dated 2.6.2014, has attained finality on withdrawal of the said petition more particularly, when that order was never challenged, or brought to the notice of this Court of being challenged, before any higher forum. Therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed not only on the ground of suppression of material fact, but having filed on earlier occasion petition praying for the very same relief, it is barred by res-judicata as it has been withdrawn without any liberty to file it again on the same cause of action. The applicant could not have filed present application praying for the very same relief only on the ground that closure report was not adjudicated as directed by the order of the Supreme Court dated 5.9.2018. The applicant could not have filed present application praying for the very same relief only on the ground that closure report was not adjudicated as directed by the order of the Supreme Court dated 5.9.2018. The day on which said petition withdrawn there was neither an order of Supreme Court dated 5.9.2018 nor the decision of Supreme Court of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra). 17. As such, so far as hearing or adjudication of the closure report is concerned, the applicant was never required to be heard being proposed accused in the case, therefore, continuing the further investigation pursuant to an order dated 5.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Police and filing of the charge-sheet, cannot be termed as illegal. Even if is so, when challenge to the said investigation having failed by withdrawal of the petition, without there being any liberty reserved for challenging it again before the very Court, this application cannot be entertained. 18. As pointed out by Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for respondent No. 2, it is clear that filing of a closure report is found to be ignoring evidence collected during the course of investigation and it was brought to the notice of the concerned Magistrate also. Not only that decision dated 5.1.2015 for carrying out further investigation, was also communicated to the concerned Magistrate. 19. The judgment relied on by Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior counsel in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra) can be said to be fully complied with when on closure report, it had come to the notice of the higher authority that it is filed ignoring earlier investigation and without supporting documents being produced before it and it is a fraud appears to be calling for punitive action against the then investigating officer that was brought to the notice of the concerned Court vide communication dated 5.11.2014 by Dy. Commissioner of Police. Not only that on arriving at a conclusion for initiating further investigation into the offence, the said decision was also communicated to the concerned Court. Commissioner of Police. Not only that on arriving at a conclusion for initiating further investigation into the offence, the said decision was also communicated to the concerned Court. The challenge to the said decision having come to an end and having become final prior to the decision in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra), the applicant could not have taken shelter of the same for re-opening the very issue again, that too, when he has not disclosed the filing of the earlier petition in the present application as also the withdrawal of the same. 20. Once, the higher officers found it necessary to carry out the further investigation into the offence and the said decision is communicated to the Court, adjudication of the closure report filed by the then investigating officer which called for punitive action against him, pales into insignificance. 21. In view of Section 173(8) further investigation by the Investigating Agency, after presentation of charge-sheet is permissible in any case impliedly but in no event is impermissible. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication barred the right of the police to further investigate the case in certain circumstances. In Ramlal Narang vs. State (Delhi Adm.) 1979 (2) SCC 322 , it was observed by the Supreme Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts pointing towards inappropriate illegal investigation calling for punitive action against earlier officer come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offence found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the Court. 22. At any rate, so far as investigation or further investigation is concerned, the accused has no say in it once it is found to be in accordance with law. 23. 22. At any rate, so far as investigation or further investigation is concerned, the accused has no say in it once it is found to be in accordance with law. 23. For determining this application, facts of investigation or merit thereof is not gone into in detail so as not to prejudice case of either one which is yet to be determined at the time of trial. 24. Considering the correspondence referred to herein above, it is clear that not only earlier investigation carried out by the investigating officer is ignored by the concerned officer who filed closure report dated 2.6.2014, he appears to have relied on the factum of private handwriting expert’s opinion without getting the disputed documents verified through the Forensic Science Laboratory manned by Government. 25. Comparing the prayer made in the earlier petition being Special Criminal Application No. 5107 of 2018 with the prayer made in this application, it is clear that, it is nothing but one and same. Therefore, once when earlier petition praying for the very same relief is withdrawn without any liberty reserved for filing it again or challenging it before the higher forum, it becomes final. Therefore, this application cannot be entertained praying for the very same relief, which was sought for, in the earlier petition. In an earlier petition, what was prayed is the decision dated 5.1.2015 for further investigation into the offence, as also the order passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012 in connection with very same FIR whereby, that Court directed further investigation. In the present application, what is prayed for is investigation conducted by the police after filing of Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 and the charge-sheet culminated into Criminal Case No. 33212 of 2019. Practically, Closure Report is filed by ACP Mr. Dudhat pursuant to an order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012 directing further investigation whereas, decision dated 5.1.2015 is directing further investigation by the Commissioner of Police having found that the Closure Report is ignoring earlier investigation conducted by other Investigating Officer found to be a fraud upon the investigation. Therefore, in essence, the investigation pursuant to Closure Report is carried out after decision dated 5.1.2015 only. Merely because, the prayer is couched in a different language, what is to be seen is the ultimate request made to the Court. Therefore, in essence, the investigation pursuant to Closure Report is carried out after decision dated 5.1.2015 only. Merely because, the prayer is couched in a different language, what is to be seen is the ultimate request made to the Court. Considering from that angle, prayers in both these matters are one and same. On the contrary, petitioner himself had challenged order passed by Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2012 directing further investigation pursuant to which Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 came to be filed. 26. The decision relied on in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra) by the applicant is rendered by the Supreme Court subsequent to the withdrawal of earlier petition. Earlier petition being Special Criminal Application No. 5107 of 2018 came to be withdrawn on 28.6.2018. Therefore, decision dated 5.1.2015 directing further investigation into an offence having become final and attained finality. Charge-sheet in the present case came to be submitted on 3.8.2019 whereas, decision in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.10.2019. 27. As such, further investigation pursuant to decision dated 5.1.2015 concluded by filing of a charge-sheet after the Competent Court having been informed time and again about the circumstances under which the said decision came to be taken. Thus, the day on which, further investigation was taken up by an order dated 5.1.2015, the said decision was as per the prevailing law at the relevant time and challenge to that decision also having failed prior to passing of the order in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra) this application requires to be rejected on that ground also. The Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 found to be incorrect, inappropriate and ignoring the material collected during the course of investigation, as also relying on opinion by private handwriting expert on disputed document without sending the same to the Government handwriting expert, a need arisen to take decision by higher police authority to order further investigation, which was taken on 5.1.2015. Prior to taking up further investigation, the concerned Magistrate was duly informed in writing about shortfall and shortcomings in the Closure Report requiring punitive action needed against the officer who filed it and then intimation and demand requiring the documents for the purpose of investigation in writing to the Court, is sufficient compliance in accordance with law, as on that date prevailing. 28. 28. Furthermore, any further investigation carried out and material collected pursuant to such investigation, ipso-facto, would not become inadmissible in evidence, that too, for want of leave from the Court. 29. As such, this application could not have been filed for the very same relief, which was asked for in an earlier petition, which came to be withdrawn long back, that too, on conclusion of further investigation and filing of the charge-sheet pursuant thereto. Not only that, the applicant has not whispered about it in this present application that he had challenged that very further investigation pursuant to a decision dated 5.1.2015 in this application which requires imposition of a cost which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today. 30. Hence, I find no substance in this application, even on law point, and therefore, it is hereby rejected with a cost, as aforesaid. Notice is discharged. Criminal Misc. Application No. 23874 of 2019 1. This application is filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 16.11.2019 passed below Closure Report dated 2.6.2014 whereby, in view of filing of the charge-sheet against the applicant, the Closure Report came to be disposed of. 2. As aforesaid, the Closure Report found to be incorrect, inappropriate as also ignoring material collected during the course of investigation by the earlier Investigating Officer, as also relying on a report by private handwriting expert, a conscious decision was taken by the Commissioner of Police requesting State to initiate punitive action against the person, who has submitted that Closure Report, as also directing further investigation into the said case. When the charge-sheet has been filed, the rejection of Closure Report or disposal of Closure Report, in view of filing of the charge-sheet, cannot be questioned on any ground. As such, the said Closure Report appears to have been filed ignoring the papers of investigation itself against whom, a punitive action is recommended by the Commissioner of Police to the State Government. 3. If the applicant is aggrieved by filing of the charge-sheet, he may have recourse to the law for challenging the same before the appropriate Forum. However, when filing of the Closure Report itself was found to be inappropriate, its disposal by impugned order requires no interference as such. 3. If the applicant is aggrieved by filing of the charge-sheet, he may have recourse to the law for challenging the same before the appropriate Forum. However, when filing of the Closure Report itself was found to be inappropriate, its disposal by impugned order requires no interference as such. Hence, this application is also rejected keeping in mind the decision in the aforesaid matter being Criminal Misc. Application No. 15602 of 2019.