JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri H.C. Mishra, learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State-respondent and Sri I. K. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G. S. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent-2. 2. Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.5469 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “CrMA-1”) has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") by two applicants namely, Kuldeep Narayan and Harendra Vikram with a prayer that order dated 26.06.2003 passed by First Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Meerut in Case Crime No.90 of 2000 under Sections 392 and 411 IPC, Police Station-Kharkhauda, District-Meerut for reinvestigation be quashed, on the ground that Magistrate has no power for directing reinvestigation or fresh investigation. 3. Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.2444 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “CrMA-2”) has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") by three applicants namely, Lokesh Kumar Singhal, Sunil Kumar Maheshwari and Rakesh alias Rajesh alias Bhurey with a prayer that Case No.3187 of 2004 registered before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad be clubbed with Case No.158/11 of 2003 pending before Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and should be tried together. 4. Facts giving rise to CrMA-1 in brief are that a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) being Case Crime No.90 of 2000 under Section 392 IPC, Police Station-Kharkhauda, District-Meerut was registered on 05.04.2000 by Informant Lokesh Kumar Singhal and it was against unknown accused persons. Allegations in FIR dated 05.04.2000 stated that Informant Lokesh Kumar is engaged in the business of manufacturing of wires in his factory, “U.P. Insulator Cable Company”. In the night of 04/05.04.2000 at 1.30 AM, some persons entered his factory through a ladder crossing rear wall, tied the gunman Santram and other working labours and confined them in a room. Thereafter they took away 442 rolls of cable wires and three bundles copper in a vehicle. The information was given to Informant by his employee Anil Kumar in the morning of 05.04.2000 and thereafter he lodged report. 5. Police during investigation recorded statements of Santram (gunman), Kalp Nath Rai (Chowkidar) and Anil (another employee of Informant's firm). Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'I.O.'), however, submitted final report on 31.12.2000 which was registered as Misc. Case No.110 of 2001 vide Magistrate's order dated 02.06.2001. 5. Police during investigation recorded statements of Santram (gunman), Kalp Nath Rai (Chowkidar) and Anil (another employee of Informant's firm). Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'I.O.'), however, submitted final report on 31.12.2000 which was registered as Misc. Case No.110 of 2001 vide Magistrate's order dated 02.06.2001. Notice was issued to Complainant/Informant giving opportunity to file objection but no objection by opposite party was filed. Ultimately, by order dated 08.11.2002, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Meerut, accepted final report. After a long time, on oral request of Complainant, Sub Inspector Sri Manik Chand Nigam without obtaining permission from concerned Magistrate or higher authority proceeded to Faizabad and raided applicants' shop and go down and seized some material alleging the same to be stolen items and also arrested applicants. Applicants, thereafter were produced before 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 20.01.2003 and remand was sought. Magistrate taking note of the fact that final report was already accepted and no permission of Magistrate was obtained, rejected application seeking remand of accused-applicants Kuldeep Narayan and Harendra Vikram by order dated 20.01.2003. Against order dated 20.01.2003, Criminal Revision No.38 of 2002 was filed wherein I.O. Sri Mahesh Singh Chauhan submitted report that it could not be found proved that goods were either stolen or belongs to Complainant and no prima facie case was found against applicants. Revisional Court by order dated 05.05.2003 allowed revision observing that police is free to proceed for further investigation as per law. Operative part of revisional order reads as under : “Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.1.2003 passed by ACJ VI Meerut is set aside. However, in view of the application, moved by the Investigating officer 16 Kha dated 28.4.2003 the Investigating officer is free to proceed with the investigation, as per rules/law.” 6. Applicants then made complaint of Sri Manik Chand Nigam, S.I. Before higher authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, (hereinafter referred to as 'SSP'). Thereupon by order dated 15.02.2003 further investigation was handed over to another officer Sri Mahesh Singh Chauhan. After making further investigation Sri Mahesh Singh Chauhan submitted report on 08.05.2003 finding no case against applicants. Applicants then submitted an application before Magistrate for release of goods seized from their shop and godown. Therein I.O. Sri M. S. Chauhan submitted report dated 14.05.2003 stating that he has no objection for release. After making further investigation Sri Mahesh Singh Chauhan submitted report on 08.05.2003 finding no case against applicants. Applicants then submitted an application before Magistrate for release of goods seized from their shop and godown. Therein I.O. Sri M. S. Chauhan submitted report dated 14.05.2003 stating that he has no objection for release. When matter was pending, Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'I.G.') passed order dated 05.06.2003 transferring investigation of Case Crime No.90 of 2000 to District-Ghaziabad. I.G. failed to consider that no investigation was pending, since, final report was submitted by I.O. on 08.05.2003 before Magistrate. Pursuant to order of Inspector General of Police, SSP, Ghaziabad entrusted investigation to Sub Inspector, Sri B. S. Verma, SIS. Sri B. S. Verma, S.I. moved an application dated 26.06.2003 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Meerut requesting for permission for investigation whereupon order dated 26.06.2003 has been passed by Magistrate permitting re-investigation. This order is challenged on the ground that there is no provision for re-investigation and, therefore, order dated 26.06.2003 is wholly without jurisdiction. 7. In the meantime, applicants also submitted an application before SSP, Meerut on 10.06.2003 requesting to register FIR against Lokesh Kumar Singhal, Sunil Kumar Maheshwari, Rajesh, Manik Chand Nigam (S.I.) and Head Constable Girwar Singh, Rajkumar. Order was passed by SSP directing Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Meerut to register case whereupon Case Crime No.1371 of 2003 under Sections-166, 167, 182, 342, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC was registered against Lokesh Kumar Singhal, Sunil Kumar Maheshwari, Rajesh, Manik Chand Nigam (S.I.) and Girwar Singh (Head Constable), Rajkumar (Constable). 8. In CrMA-2 facts are broadly similar but to put things straight the manner in which applicants have stated, I may state the same here n below. 9. Alleging theft of 400 rolls of copper wires and three bundle of copper, FIR being Case Crime No.90 of 2000 was registered under Section 392 IPC against unknown persons at Police Station-Kharkhauda, District-Meerit by applicant Lokesh Kumar Singhal as Informant. Police after investigation submitted final report which was accepted by Magistrate vide order dated 08.11.2000. Thereafter, on some information received by Sub Inspector, Sri Manik Chand Nigam, he went to Faizabad and raided shop of Kuldeep Narayan (O.P.no.2) and Harendra wherefrom 172 rolls insulated copper wire were recovered, allegedly stolen/looted in the incident dated 04./05.04.2000. Police after investigation submitted final report which was accepted by Magistrate vide order dated 08.11.2000. Thereafter, on some information received by Sub Inspector, Sri Manik Chand Nigam, he went to Faizabad and raided shop of Kuldeep Narayan (O.P.no.2) and Harendra wherefrom 172 rolls insulated copper wire were recovered, allegedly stolen/looted in the incident dated 04./05.04.2000. Looted property was identified by applicant-1 Lokesh Kumar and recovery memo was prepared. Two accused Kuldeep Narayan and Harendra were arrested and produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad for transit remand. They were brought to Meerut and produced before VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking remand which was declined, since, final report was already accepted and police had not obtained any prior permission. Aggrieved by order dated 20.01.2003 passed by Magistrate declining to accord remand, State Government filed Criminal Revision No.38 of 2003 which was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2003 and Revisonal Court at Meerut observed that further investigation may be made. Investigation was handed over to Sub Inspector, Sri Mahesh Singh Chauhan. Applicants, however, moved an application before District Inspector General(hereinafter referred to as 'DIG')/IG, Meerut for entrusting investigation to another officer since Sri Mahesh Singh Chauhan was in connivance with O.P.2 and his accomplices. By order dated 06.06.2003, DIG, Meerut directed that investigation shall be conducted by SIS at Ghaziabad and Sri B. S. Verma, Sub Inspector of SIS was appointed as I.O. After obtaining permission from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Meerut, he completed investigation and submitted charge sheet against Kuldeep Narayan and Harendra Vikram and one Shyam Behari on 16.07.2003. 10 However, Magistrate at Meerut was informed that order dated 26.06.2003 passed in Case Crime No.90 of 2000 under Section 392 and 411 IPC was stayed on 14.07.2003 by this Court in CrMA-1. Further both parties moved application before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Meerut for release of goods. Thereafter applicants of CrMA-1 got a report lodged against applicants of CrMA-2 i.e. Case Crime No. 1371 of 2003 under Sections-166, 167, 182, 342, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC on 10.06.2003. This FIR was challenged by applicant-1 of CrMA-2 in Writ Petition No.4634 of 2003. Thereafter applicants of CrMA-1 got a report lodged against applicants of CrMA-2 i.e. Case Crime No. 1371 of 2003 under Sections-166, 167, 182, 342, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC on 10.06.2003. This FIR was challenged by applicant-1 of CrMA-2 in Writ Petition No.4634 of 2003. Vide order dated 08.09.2003, while issuing notice to Kuldeep Narayan and Mahesh Singh Chauhan, who were impleaded as respondent-5 and 6 in aforesaid writ petition, time was granted to file counter affidavit to State and this Court stayed arrest of applicant-1 in Case Crime No.1371 of 2003 till submission of charge sheet or credible evidence is collected during investigation. Investigation was conducted in Case Crime No.1371 of 2003 and ultimately charge sheet has been filed. Magistrate has taken cognizance, summoned applicants and case has been registered as Case No.3187 of 2004 in the Court of Chief Judical Magistrate, Faizabad. Submission of applicants in CrMA-2 is that one case is at Faizabad and another at Meerut, though both cases have arisen from same incident and, therefore, both cases should be tried together. 11. I proceed to consider first CrMA-1, wherein order dated 26.06.2003 passed by Magistrate has been challenged wherein direction has been given for ^^iqu% foospuk^^ which according to applicants is re-investigation, and is not permissible, while according to opposite parties, it is further investigation and permissible. Hence, this Court is required to consider whether aforesaid order is valid or not. 12. It is no doubt true that for Hindi words ^^iqu% foospuk^^ used in impugned order dated 26.06.2003, dictionary meaning is re-investigation. Under Section 173 (8) CrPC, Police possesses power to proceed for further investigation, but there is no provision empowering police for reinvestigation. Word “re-investigation” has to be understood in the context of fresh investigation, new investigation and not in continuation with investigation already made. Before coming to the specific case in hand, it will be appropriate to have a bird eye view of law on the subject. 13. In Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322 , Court considered the scope and purport of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and said that on the Magistrate taking cognizance on police report, right of Police to further investigate is not exhausted and it could exercise such right even if, as often as necessary, when fresh information comes to light. Further, it also observed that it is desirable that Police ordinarily should inform Court and seek its formal permission to make further investigation, if fresh facts come to light so as to maintain independence of judiciary, in the interests of purity of administration of criminal justice and in interests of comity of various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration. 14. In Randhir Singh Rana vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 Court observed that power of further investigation is available to Police after submission of charge-sheet by virtue of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 15. In Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770 , again Court held that Investigating Officer has power to make a prayer for conducting further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and this power is not taken away only because a charge-sheet has been filed under Section 173(2) and cognizance has been taken by Magistrate. 16. In Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2009(6) SCC 346 Court examined power of Magistrate under sub Section (2) and (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and said: "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." 17. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762 Court recognizaed power of further investigation of Police suo motu with reference to Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and held that Investigating Agency was competent to file a report supplementary to its primary report and that the former was to be treated by Court in continuation of the latter. 18. The decision in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali (supra) has been reiterated and followed in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana, 2014(2) SCC (Cri) 159 observing that superior Courts have jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of Constitution of India to direct further investigation, afresh or denovo, and even re-investigation. 18. The decision in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali (supra) has been reiterated and followed in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana, 2014(2) SCC (Cri) 159 observing that superior Courts have jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of Constitution of India to direct further investigation, afresh or denovo, and even re-investigation. Fresh, de novo or reinvestigation are synonym expressions and result whereof in law, would be same. Superior Courts are even vested with power of investigation transferred from one agency to another, provided ends of justice so demands. This power has to be exercised by Superior Courts very sparingly and with great circumspection. Court reiterated the following observation with regard to the power of Magistrate: "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 would be specific order of the Court that would determine the nature of investigation." 19. The exposition of law laid down in above authorities is well established but it has to be examined in the facts of particular case whether there is any order of fresh or re-investigation or it is an order of further investigation and for this purpose mere use of words ^^iqu% foospuk^^ as such will not be a guiding factor, since, it is substance which is to be looked into. 20. Now considering above expositions of law, I have to examine order dated 26.06.2003 in the context, whether Magistrate intended to direct fresh investigation or new investigation as re-investigation or it is further investigation i.e. in continuation to investigation already made. 21. 20. Now considering above expositions of law, I have to examine order dated 26.06.2003 in the context, whether Magistrate intended to direct fresh investigation or new investigation as re-investigation or it is further investigation i.e. in continuation to investigation already made. 21. To examine this aspect, I may reproduce order dated 26.06.2003 which reads as under : ^^v la 90@2000 /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-la- ds foospd ih ,l oekZ }kjk izkFkZuk i= esa iqu% rrh'k ls /kkjk 173 lhvkjihlh ds izdj.k ds lnaHkZ esa lhMh iqu%foospuk fd;s tkus ds lanHkZ esa fn;k x;k gSA dgk x;k gS fd mijksDr lanHkZ esa iqu% rrh'k pwWfd rkj dk uewuk cjken feyku esa fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk esa rLnhd ugha djk;k x;k gS rFkk egRoiw.kZ lk{kh gS rFkk c;ku vafdr ugha fd;s x, gS ^^vkns'k ds rgr iqu% foospuk^^ dkxtkr okil fd;s tkosA vr% iqu% foospuk ds vuqefr o dkxtkr fof/kd okil fd;s tkrs gSaA^^ In an application for re-investigation in respect of case under Section 173 CrPC moved by P.S. Verma, Investigating Officer of the Crime No.90/2000 under Section 392 IPC, it is stated that under the order: “Since recovered sample of wire has not been verified in the Forensic Laboratory and statements of important witnesses have not been recorded” in the aforesaid reference, re-investigation documents be returned. Hence, with the permission for re-investigation, legal documents are returned.” (emphasis added) (English translation by Court) Hindi in para 22. Magistrate has allowed application submitted by police with permission to make ^^iqu% foospuk^^ Magistrate had not observed that earlier investigation shall be a nullity and police will make a new investigation. Entire order when read as such makes intention clear that Magistrate has directed police to make further investigation i.e. investigation in continuance to investigation already made and not altogether a new investigation ignoring earlier investigation. The mere terminology used by Magistrate i.e. ^^iqu% foospuk^^ , in my view, will not control the order when intention of order from its very perusal is quite clear. It is different thing that what is being conveyed by the party challenging said order on the ground that it is a permission for new investigation or fresh investigation and not further investigation but in fact, in Hindi, I do not find a single word for 'further investigation' and Hindi to English dictionary shows its meaning to be vkxs dh tkap iM+rky . It appears that the terminology used in this aspect by Magistrate is a little bit defective but intention of Magistrate as well as Police authorities is very clear when we read application and order that it is permission with direction for further investigation and not a new investigation. Hence, I do not find any reason to hold impugned order dated 26.06.2003, illegal and reject submissions advanced otherwise by applicants in CrMA-1. 23. Now coming to CrMA-2, apparently cases pending in two Courts are different to the extent that offences under different provisions against different persons are involved, but it cannot be doubted that on certain aspects the facts in both cases are overlapping and some aspects are common. If one aspect is true in one matter then second cannot continue and second case will stand belied. But the question is whether a case from one Court to another can be transferred on an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or such a request should be made by filing application under Section 407 CrPC. There was one option, whereby this Court would have permitted applicants of CrMA-2 to move an application under Section 407 CrPC requesting for transfer of case to another district where one case is already pending and thereafter request could have been made to concerned District Judge to direct that both cases should be heard by same Court. This option would take further time and only result in multiplying litigation. These matters are pending for almost 15-17 years. Power under Section 482 CrPC is wide enough and mere mention or non mention of a provision cannot deprive a Court to exercise powers which is otherwise vested in it, even if it is not mentioned by applicants. In given facts and circumstances, Court can exercise a power if it is vested with it. 24. In these facts and circumstances, exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 407 CrPC, I allow CrMA-2 i.e. Application under Section 482 CrPC No.2444 of 2005 and transfer Case No.3187 of 2004 (State of U.P. vs. Lokesh Kumar Singhal and others) pending in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad to Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut with a further direction that Case No.158/11 of 2003 pending in the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut shall be heard together with transferred case. 25. 25. In the result, CrMA-1 is hereby dismissed and CrMA-2 is allowed in the manner as aforesaid.