Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No. 178/2011 on 3rd October 2012, which runs as under:-

"1] The application below Exh.7 is hereby rejected.

2] As the complaint was sent for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. PC. To PSO Khallar and PSO has registered FIR. There is no any proceeding is pending in this court to pass any order accordingly proceeding below Exh.1 is disposed of."

4. This order was passed by the learned Magistrate below applications (Exhibits 1 and 7). The petitioner wanted the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(viii), 3(1) (ix), 3(2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 to be added in the F.I.R. registered by Police being F.I.R. No. M-1 dated 23rd November 2011. The said F.I.R. was registered pursuant to the order passed by learned Magistrate in a Miscellaneous case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 9th September 2011. By the said order, the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent nos. 3 to 61 was referred to the police for investigation and report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As already stated above, F.I.R. had been registered by police. However, the police did not register the offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The petitioner wanted these sections to be added in the F.I.R. Learned Magistrate refused to do so on the ground that he has no power to interfere with the investigation of the F.I.R. already registered by the police.

5. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the application of the petitioner could not have been disposed of by the Magistrate by refusing to exercise jurisdiction only because the police have already started investigation. It is submitted by Mr. Mirza that despite registration of offence and pendency of investigation, the Magistrate can exercise his jurisdiction over the case and direct further investigation or reinvestigation in any matter referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Code ofCrimina1 Procedure. He has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (reported at) 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 421 : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 244]. Para 24 of the said judgment runs as under:-

"In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in charge of the police station concerned to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) CrPC, we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision."

6. I have gone through the said judgment. It is stated in the judgment that the Magistrate directing registration of offence has impliedly been empowered to take all necessary steps for proper investigation of the case, which may include monitoring the same.

7. After having gone through the said judgment and the judgment reported at AIR 2003 SC 2612 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1578 (S.C.)] (Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja) I have come to the conclusion that the manner and the method of conducting investigation are left entirely with the officer in-charge of the police station or a subordinate officer deputed by him. The Magistrate has got the very limited role to play once a complaint/application is sent to police for investigation in exercise of powers un