ORDER : This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in filing charge sheet in FIR No.110 of 2014 on the file of P.G Ghantasala, Krishna District, without conducting proper investigation more particularly without collecting/ mentioning the call data of the accused arrayed therein and in not conducted investigation a fair and transparent manner right from the stage of registering the crime as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently to direct the respondents No.3 to 6 to conduct further investigation in FIR No.110 of 2014 dated 22.7.2014 on the file of Ghantasala police station, Krishna District. 2. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was brutally murdered by one Venkata Nageswara Rao @ Raja and others on 22.6.2014 at 14.00 hrs. In the year 1992, the junior paternal uncle of the said Venkata Nageswara Rao was murdered by Lingineni Nageswara Rao. It is further stated that, on 22.6.2014 the police registered a case in FIR No.110 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC on the complaint given by the mother of the petitioner. After obtaining the certified copies and after analyzing all the aspects, the petitioner was able to sense that the investigation is not being done in proper respective as the basic version of the complainant was not mentioned by the police in the complaint. Even in the seizure report, the police did not seize the phone of the accused and not conducted the investigation in the technical way viz., gathering the cell phone call data, tracing the calls made prior to the committing of the offence, tracing the repeated cell numbers and examining them, etc., Accordingly, on 17.8.2014, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondent No.2 requesting to look into the matter. But till date there is no response. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel represent M/s Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Sri K. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, the petitioner herein is the Advocate by profession and practicing as such in High Court of A.P for the past 10 years. 4. On hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, the petitioner herein is the Advocate by profession and practicing as such in High Court of A.P for the past 10 years. The petitioner’s father was brutally murdered by one Venkata Nageswara Rao @ Raja, Ghantasala Mandal and others on 22.06.2014 at 14.00 hrs. The said incident was took place at petitioner’s farm and when his father had gone there to draw water to their garden along with his mother on that day. Thereafter, basing on the complaint given by the petitioner’s mother, the police have registered a case in FIR No.110 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC on 22.06.2014. Learned Senior counsel further submits that, at the time of registering the complaint, neither the petitioner nor his brother were present and at the time of incident the petitioner was in Hyderabad and reached that place in the night and similarly the petitioner’s brother who was residing in Vijayawada also reached after two hours of the incident. He further submits that, in this case, the present accused executed the murder along with four other accused and hence it is clear that all the FIVE accused have executed the offence of Murder in a very brutal way. He further submits that the recovery was made by the police in the scene of offence and admittedly two weapons were recovered by police and therefore it clearly shows that single person cannot hold two weapons and cannot attack and cut the body into ten pieces. But the investigation officer has not considered and concentrated on these aspects and remanded the accused stating that he is the sole accused in the case. 5. Learned senior counsel further submits that, earlier, the petitioner has already filed a writ petition in WP No.28618 of 2014 and the same is pending adjudication before this Court. But the investigation officer has not considered and concentrated on these aspects and remanded the accused stating that he is the sole accused in the case. 5. Learned senior counsel further submits that, earlier, the petitioner has already filed a writ petition in WP No.28618 of 2014 and the same is pending adjudication before this Court. Subsequent to filing of the above writ petition, the investigating agency completed investigation and filed final report before the Court at Avanigadda without collecting the call data of the accused in the above crime and the Court took cognizance of the case in PRC No.52 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Avanigadda for the offence under Section 302 IPC and committed the same to the Court of session in SC No.312 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam Krishna District. He mainly contended that without proper investigation and without collecting the material in proper way has filed charge sheet and numbered the case. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to reinvestigate the matter. 6. To support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed a reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Pal versus State of Haryana and others, (2016) 4 SCC 160 , wherein the Apex Court held that : We may further elucidate. The power to order fresh, de-novo or reinvestigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. It can never be forgotten that as the great ocean has only one test, the test of salt, so does justice has one flavour, the flavour of answering to the distress of the people without any discrimination. We may hasten to add that the democratic setup has the potentiality of ruination if a citizen feels, the truth uttered by a poor man is seldom listened to. Not for nothing it has been said that Sun rises and Sun sets, light and darkness, winter and spring come and go, even the course of time is playful but truth remains and sparkles when justice is done. Not for nothing it has been said that Sun rises and Sun sets, light and darkness, winter and spring come and go, even the course of time is playful but truth remains and sparkles when justice is done. It is the bounden duty of a Court of law to uphold the truth and truth means absence of deceit, absence of fraud and in a criminal investigation a real and fair investigation, not an investigation that reveals itself as a sham one. It is not acceptable. It has to be kept uppermost in mind that impartial and truthful investigation is imperative. If there is indentation or concavity in the investigation, can the „faith? in investigation be regarded as the gospel truth? Will it have the sanctity or the purity of a genuine investigation? If a grave suspicion arises with regard to the investigation, should a Constitutional Court close its hands and accept the proposition that as the trial has commenced, the matter is beyond it? That is the “tour de force” of the prosecution and if we allow ourselves to say so it has become “„id?ee fixe” but in our view the imperium of the Constitutional Courts cannot be stifled or smothered by bon mot or polemic. Of course, the suspicion must have some sort of base and foundation and not a figment of one?s wild imagination. One may think an impartial investigation would be a nostrum but not doing so would be like playing possum. As has been stated earlier facts are self-evident and the grieved protagonist, a person belonging to the lower strata. He should not harbor the feeling that he is an “orphan under law”. 7. Learned Senior counsel while placing the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, submits that, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, while denying the contents made by the petitioner, submits that, a fair and impartial investigation was conducted by the investigating agency. There is no evidence adduced during the course of investigation except the only one accused, no other person was participated in the commission of murder of the deceased. There is no evidence adduced during the course of investigation except the only one accused, no other person was participated in the commission of murder of the deceased. He further submits that there are no merits in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. On perusing the material available on record, this Court observed that, the accused whose name was mentioned in the FIR is also an offender being prosecuted under Section 302 IPC in Guntur District in S.C.No.119 of 2013 which is pending for trial, and that while the accused is on bail, he has committed the murder of petitioner’s father. In that case also, the present accused executed the murder along with four other accused and therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, in the present case also, all the FIVE accused have executed the offence of Murder in a very brutal way. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the recovery was made by the police at the scene of offence and admittedly there are two weapons and hence it clearly shows that Single person cannot hold two weapons and can attack and cut the body into ten pieces. But the investigation officer has not considered and concentrated on these aspects and remanded the accused stating that he is the sole accused in the case. 10. In a case of “State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy and Another etc., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515” wherein it was held as follows:- What is the meaning of the term “Further Investigation”? 48. In Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 346 , this Court held that, “further investigation within the meaning of provision of Section 173(8) CrPC 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.” ...... 59. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 , this Court held as follows: “68. An order of further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 36 thereof stands on a different footing. 59. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 , this Court held as follows: “68. An order of further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 36 thereof stands on a different footing. The power of the investigating officer to make further investigation in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction under Section 173(8) of the Code and at the instance of the State having regard to Section 36 thereof read with Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 should be considered in different contexts. Section 173(8) of the Code is an enabling provision. Only when cognizance of an offence is taken, the learned Magistrate may have some say. But, the restriction 25 imposed by judicial legislation is merely for the purpose of upholding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. It is one thing to say that the court will have supervisory jurisdiction to ensure a fair investigation, as has been observed by a Bench of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [ (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440] , correctness whereof is open to question, but it is another thing to say that the investigating officer will have no jurisdiction whatsoever to make any further investigation without the express permission of the Magistrate.” ..... 62. In Vinubhai (supra); a three-Judge Bench of this Court has endeavoured to lay at rest the controversy enveloping the evasive issue of further investigation directed by the Magistrate. This Court, speaking through Justice R.F. Nariman, has laid down at Para 38 that: “To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nor under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law.” It was also clarified that, “The “investigation” spoken of in Section 156(3) would embrace the entire process, which begins 27 with the collection of evidence and continues until charges are framed by the Court, at which stage the trial can be said to have begun.”. 65. However, the question before this Court is whether sub section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC permits further investigation after the Magistrate has accepted a final report (closure report) under sub section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC. The contention raised on behalf of the accused persons is that acceptance of a closure report would terminate the proceedings finally so as to bar the investigating agency from carrying out any further investigation in connection with the offence. ..... 73. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it appears that though the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. As held by this Court in the said decision, the provisions of Section 173(8) of the CrPC have been enacted to take care of such like situations also. ... 77. We may summarise our final conclusion as under: (i) Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. ... 77. We may summarise our final conclusion as under: (i) Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. (ii) Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed. (iv) Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. (v) There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. 11. In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the case in “Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135 ”, where the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India were discussed in the context of ‘speedy trial’ juxtaposed to ‘fair trial’ in the following manner: “83........Though a court’s satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can by no means be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analysed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and met out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the court of law is to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency”. 12. Therefore, in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, it is a fit case to reinvestigate the case by recording both oral and documentary evidence. 12. Therefore, in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, it is a fit case to reinvestigate the case by recording both oral and documentary evidence. In view of the same, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition while declaring the action of the respondents No.3 to 6 in filing the charge sheet as illegal and arbitrary. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents No.3 to 6 are directed to make further investigation to obtain further evidence both oral and documentary pertaining to the petitioner and to submit the final report before the competent trial Court to meet the ends of justice. 14. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.