ORDER : 1. The petitioner Smt.Puttamma arraigned as defacto complainant in C.C.No.23897 of 2015, which is pending before the 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for trial against the accused who were arraigned as Respondent Nos.2 to 10 in this petition. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.08.2016 in C.C.No.23897/2015 and seeking to set aside the order and thereby to allow the application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Shri.M.S.Rajendra Prasad appearing for the petitioner/complainant and so also, Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1/State and Shri.K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 10/accused. Perused the materials. 3. It is transpired in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, Smt.Puttamma and based upon her complaint, case in Cr.No.98 of 2015 came to be registered by J.P.Nagar Police Station for the offences, which reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the police. 4. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer has investigated the case and laid the chargesheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to deal with the case against the accused. The petitioner in her complaint has stated against Respondent Nos.2 to 10 herein that her father had given a house for living after death of her husband. After death of his first wife, her father had married for the second time. Later on, her father’s brother Puttegowda and her step mother had joined hands to harass her in all aspects. The petitioner had gone along with her husband to the village for harvesting ragi crop. Her two children had been left at her brother in law’s place at Bilekahalli. While the petitioner returned to her house on Sunday by 6.45 a.m., at that time, she found a red Maruthi 800 Car bearing registration No.KA03P3344 and a Tempo carrying all the household articles. At that time, Respondent No.2 slapped the petitioner on her cheek shouting at her and abused her in filthy language and the petitioner had been necked out from the house and Respondent No.2 went away in the car. One Vijaya Narasimhamurthy proceeded in a Hero Honda vehicle bearing registration No.KA05JK8828 chasing one Lokesha. The details of the articles had been mentioned in the annexure page of the complaint. 5. One Vijaya Narasimhamurthy proceeded in a Hero Honda vehicle bearing registration No.KA05JK8828 chasing one Lokesha. The details of the articles had been mentioned in the annexure page of the complaint. 5. On the basis of the said complaint, Respondent No.1 Police had registered a case against Respondent Nos.2 to 10 in Crime No.98 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 403, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the Respondent No.1 Police laid the chargesheet against the accused but during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the accused, the petitioner who is a defacto complainant had filed an application under Section 173(8) of CR.P.C. for reinvestigation into the case on the ground that the investigation made by the Respondent No.1 Police is incorrect. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of VinubhaiHaribhaiMalaviyaandothersVs.StateofGujaratandanotherwhereby it has held that, until trial commence, Magistrate has power to direct further investigation even after cognizance is taken. Whereas, Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. confers powers upon the officer incharge of the police station to further investigate the matter and submit the evidence, oral or documentary, after forwarding the report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Further, the aforesaid section shall be at the instance of the investigating officer/police officer incharge and once the order of discharge of accused is passed, thereafter the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo motu direct the investigating officer for further investigation. 7. However, in the instant case, Respondent Nos.2 to 10 who arraigned as accused in C.C.No.23897 of 2015 arose in Cr.No.98 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 403, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C., who have been carrying away household articles from the house of the petitioner/complainant. Respondent No.1/Police have registered a case even for an offence punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C. That it is a domain vested with the Investigating Agency to proceed with the case for further investigation and to recover, if any of the articles found in possession of Respondent Nos.2 to 10 who arraigned as accused in the aforesaid chargesheeted case alleged to be in possession of the properties which are stated in detail in the application filed by the petitioner. However, the investigation carried by the Investigating Agency in a strict sense under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for arriving at a right conclusion. However, the investigation carried by the Investigating Agency in a strict sense under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for arriving at a right conclusion. Even the accused had to face the trial for the alleged offences reflected in the FIR as well as in the chargesheet. But the Investigating Agency did not investigate the case any further in a proper perspective in respect of the allegations made against the accused for taking away the properties from the house of the complainant. 8. The defacto complainant has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation of where the accused had been alleged to enter into the house and had taken away the properties, which are stated in her application. That application came to be rejected by the Court of 44th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru by its order dated 11.08.2016. The complainant/petitioner and the accused are close relatives to each other, but the properties which are stated in detail in her application have not been recovered from the Investigating Agency even during the course of investigation relating to the case in Cr.No.98/2015. Therefore, she has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation and to submit further investigation report to proceed in a case as where the accused are facing trial. If not, to direct the Investigating Agency for the purpose of further investigation and to arrive at a proper conclusion is so difficult. However, the domain is vested with the Trial Court for appreciation. But the allegations in the complaint are that the accused entered into the house of the complainant and took away all the household articles of the petitioner. On this premise, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended to consider the grounds urged in this petition and to allow the same. 9. Shri.K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel who is appearing through video conference submitted that though the case in Cr.No.98 of 2015 is pending for trial against the accused and the case is set down for trial and witnesses have also been examined as PW1 to PW5, at this stage, the defacto complainant has filed an application under Section 173(8) seeking further investigation in Cr.No.98/2015 and submitting the additional chargesheet, which will cause not only hindrance to the progress of the case but will also, hamper trial against the accused and injustice would be caused to the accused for facing up of a trial. Subsequent to thorough investigation done by the Investigating Agency, the Investigating Officer has laid the chargesheet against the accused before the Jurisdictional Court in C.C.No.23897 of 2015. But during investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected the material evidence and laid the chargesheet against the accused. Therefore, the question of reinvestigation as sought for by the petitioner/complainant does not arise merely because the properties alleged to have been taken by the accused from her dwelling house but it is a disputed house. The petitioner is seeking for reinvestigation of the case by the Investigating Agency and calling her to furnish necessary documents connected with the case registered by Respondent No.1/Police and then to lay chargesheet and further investigating be permitted. Certainly, it would cause miscarriage of justice to the respondents, who arraigned as accused in the chargesheeted case. 10. Learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1/ State contended that though the order has been passed by the Court of A.C.M.M., Bengaluru and that order has been passed having gone through the entire material available on record and so also, the reasons stated in her application for seeking reinvestigation and submitting the additional chargesheet. On all these premises, learned HCGP submitted that though the scope of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. relating to legality, correctness and propriety, but the Court of A.C.M.M., Bengaluru has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. But the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised judicially and judiciously to meet the ends of justice and the objects of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 11. 11. It is in this background of the contentions taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and so also, the counter made by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 10, it is relevant to refer Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., which reads as under: 173(8): Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under subsection (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) shall as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under subsection (2). The “police report” (result of investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is a conclusion that an investigating officer draws on the basis materials collected during investigation and such conclusion can only form the basis of a competent court to take cognizance there upon under section 190(1)(b) of the Code and to proceed with the case for trial, and it cannot rely on the investigation or the result thereof; power of police to conduct further investigation, even after laying final report, is recognized under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 12. In the instant petition, the petitioner who is a defacto complainant filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. stating that Respondent Nos.2 to 10 arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 9 in C.C.No.23897 of 2015 have been carrying away the household articles from her house. But the first respondent police have registered the case even for an offence punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C. But the complaint has been received and then recording of an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., it is only then, the criminal law has been set into motion and to proceed with the case for investigation by following the requisite provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to laying the chargesheet against the accused. But merely because PWs1 to 5 have been examined on the part of the prosecution in C.C.No.23897 of 2015 cannot preclude the scope of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation and to submit an additional chargesheet. But merely because PWs1 to 5 have been examined on the part of the prosecution in C.C.No.23897 of 2015 cannot preclude the scope of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation and to submit an additional chargesheet. But chargesheet has been laid by the Investigating Officer for having conformity with the concept of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and so also Section 170 of Cr.P.C., when there is sufficient evidence, then only chargesheet can be laid against the accused persons. But the petitioner has specifically stated in her complaint and also in her application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. that her father had given a house to her, but after the death of his first wife, her father had married for the second time but subsequently, her father’s brother namely, Puttegowda and her stepmother had joined hands to cause harassment to the petitioner in all aspects, which are stated in detail in her complaint. 13. The materials on record reveals that the case in O.S.No.7149 of 2012 has been instituted by the plaintiff/petitioner herein against the defendants who are Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 10 seeking for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. Similarly, she has made an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No. 23897 of 2015. Merely because, no documents are produced to show the possession of the complainant/petitioner over the disputed house but the allegations made in the complaint against the accused are altogether different. Based upon her complaint, the case in Cr.No.98 of 2015 came to be registered by J.P.Nagr Police but merely because chargesheet against the accused is laid, it cannot preclude to file an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. But this provision has given scope to the complainant and also to the Investigating Agency to proceed further and proper investigation has to be carried out by the Investigating Agency and during investigation, materials documents shall be collected and so also, the entire articles or objects said to have been stated in the application filed by the victim/complainant. But Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. states that though the Court ordinarily should not interfere with the statutory powers of the Investigating Agency but in the facts and circumstances of the case and even filing an application by the defacto complainant for seeking further investigation and to submit additional chargesheet, it is the scope and object of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for proper adjudication of the criminal law against the accused. The doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt, it is the concept in the criminal justice delivery system unless the investigation has to be carried out without any obstacles and even to exercise power under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Though the domain vested with the Trial Court for appreciation of evidence, it may not arise in a proper perspective for arrival of a right conclusion to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence. The petitioner who has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. by stating in detail of the household articles and so also the gold jewellary, cash and other valuable articles, i.e., articles No.1 to 24, but the said articles have also to be involved in a civil case as filed by the complainant against the defendant in O.S.No.7149 of 2012 and the said civil suit is pending for adjudication between the plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, the impugned order has to be interfered with, if not, certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice and also abuse of process of law. 14. In the instant case, it is relevant to state, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. But ends of justice would be served by entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage to avoid miscarriage of justice. 15. In the instant case, the petitioner who has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking for further investigation in order to file a an additional chargesheet but inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. In the instant case, the inherent power can be exercised for intervention and setting aside the order passed by the Court of 44th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition filed by the petitioner/ complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (ii) The order passed by the Court of 44th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.23897 of 2015 dated 11.08.2016 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 173(8) is hereby allowed. The Investigating Officer of J.P.Nagar Police Station in Cr.No.98 of 2015 relating to the case in C.C.No.23897 of 2015 is directed to proceed further for investigation by referring the application filed by the complainant under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and to submit additional chargesheet as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whatever the observations made in this order would not influence either the mind of the Trial Court or the Investigating Officer of J.P.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru.