IMPORTANT POINT
Police under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C are empowered even after filing final report to conduct, further investigation in addition to the initial investigation and supplement with further charge sheet or final report.

ORDER

Dr. B.Siva Sankara Rao, J.—This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/defacto complainant under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 04.02.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2015 in P.R.C. No.24 of 2014 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad which was the outcome of Crime No.24 of 2014 registered at the instance of the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 379, 427, 448, 506, 509 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State represented by the Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. The police after investigation filed final report showing 18 accused persons. The final report is besides the Sections for which crime registered supra included Section 354-A also besides 379, 455, 395 read with 34 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 324, 354, 354A, 506, 509, 427, 379, 455 and 395 read with 34 I.P.C and issued summons to A-I to A-I6 and 19 as A-I7 and A-18 are shown in abscondence in the final report and in the final report mentioned at column No.12 that there is no material to charge the said absconding accused A-17 and A-18. It is the case committed to the Court of Session as P.R.C. No.24 of 2014 under Section 209 Cr.P.C against A-1 to A-16 and A-19. The learned Sessions Judge taken cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C for the said offences supra and the case while coming for hearing before charges, the defacto-complainant filed the petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C in CrI.P.No.113 of 2015 alleging that all the culprits reflected in the video not arrayed as accused and some of the property not even recovered. The Inspector of Police, Ramgopalpet who registered the crime and investigated, filed counter opposing the petition by denying the allegations saying that there are no grounds to make further investigation as sought for. Pursuant to it, the learned Magistrate passed the order as follows:

“Even if assuming for a moment that certain documents were not filed by investigating officer prosecution is at liberty to file the same during the course of trial. Law does not prohibit either the prosecution or the accused to file additional documents in court during the course of trial. Non filing of any document cannot be a ground to order further investigation. Some property was also seized in this case and produced by police in Court.”

3. It is impugning the same, the present application is filed by the defacto-complainant against the respondent-State representing by the Public Prosecutor, S.H.O, Ramgopalpet supra. The contentions in the application are that the learned Magistrate went wrong in his observations in para No.7 saying Court has no power to direct investigating officer to array a particular person or to delete or to interfere with the investigation conducted by the investigating officer or to direct how an investigation is to be conducted and the proper remedy is only to file an application under Section .319 Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage, if there is any material in not choosing to order further investigation to array other accused or to recover any property. It is also the submission that the learned Magistrate also went wrong in saying investigating officer is at liberty to file some of the documents not filed with charge sheet, during trial and thereby that is also not a ground of non-filing of some documents or nonseizure of further property to order investigation.

4. Heard at length and perused the material on record including the expression of Apex Court in VinayTyagi v. Irshad Ali, 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 519 SC = (2013) 5 SCC 762.

5. Now, the point for consideration is

(i) whether there are any grounds to order further investigation and if so, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable with observation merely because some other remedy available to the defacto-complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C dur