IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application No. 324 of 2002 Shailender Singh Bhandari S/o Hukum Singh Bhandari, R/o 396/2, Haridwar Road, Dehradun .. Applicant. Vs. 1- State of Uttaranchal, 2- Station House Officer, P.S. Pauri Garhwal. 3- Station House Officer, P.S. Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal. 4- Km. Poonam Dohariyal, D/o Tika Ram Dobariyal, R/o Azabpur Kalan, Dehradun… Respondents. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Dated: 08-01-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is facing the trial under Section 498-A I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 348 of 2002, Poonam Vs. Shailender Bhandari, pending in the Court of C.J.M. Dehradun, has prayed for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 2- Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the respondent No.4 K. Poonam Dobariyal, filed a complaint U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and the Court on that complaint discharged the petitioner U/S 245 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 15-7-1996. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 lodged a first information report against the petitioner on 7-6-2002 at P.S. Dalanwala, U/S 498-A I.P.C. The police after investigating the case, submitted final report in the matter. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 7-10-2002 rejected the application of the Investigating Officer for further investigation. The learned Magistrate on 8-10-2002 on an application filed by the Investigating Officer subsequently, directed that the case diary be returned to the Investigating Officer for further investigation. 3- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8-10-2002 the petitioner has approached this court by way of petition U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4- No counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4. 5- Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for respondent No.1 and perused the record. 6- Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the application of the Investigating Officer was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 7-10-2002, then there was no occasion with the learned Magistrate to allow the subsequent application moved by the Investigating Officer and directing therein that the case diary for further investigating be returned to the Investigating Officer vide order dated 8-10-2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his argument has cited before me the case of K. Chandra Sekhar etc. Versus The State of Kerala (S.C.), reported in A.C.C. 1998 (37) page 136. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Magistrate could not have reviewed his earlier order passed on 7-10-2002 vide impugned order dated 8-10-2002. In support of his submission he has cited before me the case of Surendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 575. 7- The learned A.G.A. has made the rival contention that the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 8-10-2002 is perfectly justified in view of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. 8- In order to resolve the controversy, it would be relevant to reproduce the provision of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. which runs as below:- “173 (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigating in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (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 sub- section (2) to (6) shall, as far may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).” 9- From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that the Investigating Officer, in case if has obtained further evidence, oral or documentary, then he shall forward those further oral or documentary evidence to the Magistrate for the purpose of further investigation. Nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner which may suggest that the Investigating Officer does not have the power to make further investigation in the case under the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. after submission of the final report. 10- It is worthy to mention here that when the Magistrate passed the order dated 8-10-2002 by that time the final report was neither accepted nor rejected by him and it was still pending for disposal. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point agitated by him is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order itself indicates that the Investigating Officer obtained additional evidence and he applied before the Magistrate for making further investigation in the case in the light of the additional evidence obtained by him. I do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. 11- As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has no power to review the earlier order vide impugned order dated 8-10-2002 is concerned, I again do not find any force in this argument. The order dated 7-10-2002 passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be a judgment or final order disposing of a case, therefore, the order dated 7-10-2002 passed by the Magistrate could be very well recalled by the Magistrate vide order dated 8-10-2002 and the provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention on this point is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12- For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any force in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13- Accordingly the petition is dismissed. 14- The interim order dated 29-10-2002 stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB