U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

The short but important question that arises for consideration in this Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.8 of 2015, dated 30.01.2015 in Cr.No.443 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (I AJMFC), Kothagudem, is:

"Whether a Magistrate, who forwarded the private complaint filed before him to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can interfere in the pending investigation by directing the police to add some more sections of offences in the FIR and investigate? "

2. The matrix of the case is thus:

The defacto complainant filed a private compliant against A1 to A3 before I AJMFC, Kothagudem on the allegations that complainant and accused are employees of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem and they belonged to Telangana Boggu Ghani Karmika Sangham (TBGKS) and accused 1 to 3 are officiating as President, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Union respectively. The Union is empowered to collect monthly subscriptions from the workers and to expend the same for their welfare and the amounts collected should be operated by A1 to A3. In that process, they collected an amount of Rs. 91,06.159/-. However, the accused have misappropriate the amounts collected and used for their personal purposes and did not render accounts. With these allegations the complainant filed complainant under Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 and 120B IPC. The Court referred the complaint to Town PS, Kothagudem under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the police registered a case in Cr.No.443 of 2014 and investigating the case. While so, the complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.8 of 2015 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to direct the police to incorporate Sections 409 and 477A IPC in FIR No.443 of 214. The accused opposed the petition on the ground that the Court cannot interfere with the investigation. However, the learned Magistrate turned down the objection and allowed the petition.

Hence, the instant Criminal Petition.

3. Heard.

4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners/accused is that when once the Court forwarded the complaint to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and investigation, it will be prerogative of police to conduct investigation and either to file charge sheet or refer report and during the course of investigation the judicial intervention is unwarranted and impermissible under law. He submitted that after filing charge sheet or refer report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate will again gets power either to accept the report as it is or for a different section of offence against same accused or including some other accused basing on the charge sheet and other material collected during the investigation by the police. Similarly, if referred report is filed, the Court may either accept the same or refuse to accept and proceed against accused. If Court agrees with the investigation and accepts the referred report, it shall issue notice to the defacto complainant and invite his objections in the form of protest petition and then proceed in the matter as per law. All these aforesaid powers, he argued, can be exercised by the Magistrate only after a charge sheet or referred report is filed on due completion of investigation but the Magistrate has no power to meddle with the investigation in any manner. Therefore, he submitted, the Magistrate's order directing the police to incorporate additional Sections of offences in the FIR tantamounts to intruding into the domain of investigation and therefore, the said order is vitiated by abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for defacto complainant argued that it is a misnomer to think that when once the Magistrate forwarded a private compliant to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., he has no power to issue any suitable instructions to the p