Proactive court intervention in directing further investigation to ensure fair and effective investigation for ascertaining the truth and meeting the ends of justice.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Cr.R.P. No.58/2013 and consequently to set aside the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basavakalyan, in C.C. No.99/2007, whereunder the application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was came to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, a private complaint was filed alleging that on 05.01.2005 at about 9.00 a.m., the complainant was in the land bearing Sy. No.132/A and in the said land one Samadani, who had taken the hand loan from the complainant had grown Toor crop and he has cut the crop and kept it in the heap of crop in the land for harvesting. At that time, the accused persons came to the said land in a lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-38/957 and abused the labourers of the complainant in filthy language. After coming to know the said fact, the complainant and CWs.2 and 3 went to the spot and the accused persons abused the complainant and his men and threatened them with dire consequences and thereafter by loading the said Toor crop in the said lorry have looted the property and went away from the place. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered and after investigation the charge sheet has been filed. When the case was pending, the complainant has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the further investigation of the offence, as the Investigating Officer has not seized the stolen Toor crop as well as the lorry which has been involved in the alleged offence. The said application was contested by the accused and after hearing the parties to the lis, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class passed the order dated 14.08.2013 rejecting the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.58/2013. The same was came to be dismissed by order dated 09.09.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and also the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, the trial Court has not considered the facts and law on the point and erroneously dismissed the application and the same was confirmed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in the revision petition. Thereby, a serious error has been caused in order to meet the ends of justice. It is also contended that the Revisional Court without considering the material evidence on record summarily dismissed the revision without assigning any reasons, as such the order is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that as per Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., at any time, if the further investigation is required, the Court can pass an appropriate order and in order to meet the ends of justice, the further investigation can also be made. It is the discretionary power of the Judicial Magistrate to issue the further investigation and as such the said power has not been properly exercised by the trial Court and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition by setting aside both the impugned orders.

5. Per contra, by justifying the order of the trial Court, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has not made out any good ground so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Therefore, the order of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 also vehemently argued and contended that as per the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., if already the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, under such circumstances, the Co