1 Criminal Miscellaneous No.29486 of 1999 ----- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------- Satya Narayan Yadav, son of Bhairo Yadav, resident of village-Purainiya, P.S. - Darpa, District East Champaran------------------------------------------------------(Petitioner) Versus The State Of Bihar-----------------------------------------------------------(Opposite Party) For the petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the State: Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate ------------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The prayer made in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C) is to quash the order of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul, Motihari in Raxaul PS case no. 123/96 whereby he declined to accept the final form submitted by the police and directed for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. 3. On behalf of the petitioner the only issue raised is that of jurisdiction. It has been submitted that 2 once the police completed investigation and submitted final form indicating that the occurrence was true but no clues could be found, the Magistrate had no option but to accept the final report of the police declaring the case closed. In support of this proposition learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Reeta Nag Vrs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 129. 4. No doubt the wordings used in paragraph 25 of that judgement prima facie go to support the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner but on a careful reading of the said judgement, it is found that the conclusion in paragraphs 25 and 26 are not abstract principles of law but conclusion derived in the peculiar facts of that case. 5. To appreciate the law laid down in that case, it is necessary to note the facts and submissions advanced on behalf of rival parties. In that case on the basis of charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences alleged against six of the original 16 accused persons and 10 3 other accused persons were discharged on the prayer of Investigating Officer. Subsequently, on an application filed by “de facto” complainant learned Magistrate in effect sought to review his earlier order discharging 10 accused persons and in that context the Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate ordering for reinvestigation and such order of the Calcutta High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The arguments advanced were primarily based upon provisions under section 362 of the Cr. P.C which clearly lays down that a criminal court after signing its judgement or final order disposing of a case cannot alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The court further considered that in the facts of that case appropriate remedial measure could be taken by the trial court in exercise of power under section 319 of the Cr. P.C. but it was not open for the Magistrate to direct reinvestigation or further investigation in respect of 10 accused persons whom he discharged by his judicial order. 6. The principle of law noticed above has 4 been settled since long by a catena of judgements of the Supreme Court, some of which have been noted by the Apex Court in the case of Reeta Nag (Supra). 7. The power of the Magistrate to direct further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C was noticed in that judgement also in paragraph 9 while referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of UPSC Vrs. V.S. Papaiah (1997) 7 SCC 614 and neither that judgement was criticized nor it was distinguished or dissented from by the Apex Court in the case of Reeta Nag (Supra). 8. In the present case, learned Magistrate has in no way departed from his earlier order and he had the necessary jurisdiction to direct further investigation to collect further evidence and for submitting new report. Such power is manifest from different sub-sections in Section 173 (8) of the Cr. P.C. 9. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, this court finds no good ground to interfere with impugned order of learned Magistrate. This application is, therefore, dismissed. 5 10. It goes without saying that since the matter has become old, learned Magistrate will ensure that it does not linger unnecessarily and is disposed of in accordance with law without any delay. Patna High Court The 28th April, 2010 AFR/BKS (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)