1. This case has been heard alongwith Cr. Misc. No. 33737 of 2001 and this common order will dispose of both the cases.

2. Both the applications have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" in short), in the instant petition the petitioner Neel Kamal Singh praying to quash the second chargesheet submitted by police (in Bidyapati Nagar P.S. Case No. 58 of 1999) finding out prima facie case against the accused persons under sections 498A, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the other case the same petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 16.8.2001 recorded by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai at Samastipur in the same case under which the learned Magistrate had issued processes against the petitioner and others for facing trial.

3. In both the cases the learned counsel for both the sides and learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard.

4. Uncontroverted facts of the case are as follows:

One Anita Devi, wife of the petitioner had filed the aforesaid case at the police station making various allegations. The police after investigation filed final report (No. 94 of 1999) holding the allegations to be false but thereafter on the direction issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, the then Superintendent of Police, Samastipur found the case true and directed for arrest of the accused and for further investigation, whereafter the Investigating Officer obtained permission from the Court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai for further investigation which was granted by order dated 20.8.2000/21.8.2000 against which the petitioner moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 26429 of 2000 which was disposed of by order dated 17.8.2001. In that case it was admitted on behalf of the petitioner that an order for reinvestigation or further investigation could be granted under the provision of section 173(8) of the Code but the argument was that an order in that regard could be passed if some new material had come to fore necessitating further investigation, and it was claimed that no new material was there on the record. This Court held that when a high police official had ordered for further investigation, it must have been done after getting some material which could not be questioned at that stage. The petition was dismissed.

5. It is also undisputed that all through the learned Magistrate had kept order upon the final report filed earlier, pending.

6. This Court will now consider as to whether on the materials aforesaid and in view of the arguments placed, filing of the charge-sheet, or the order of the Magistrate issuing processes against the accused after cognizance of the offence, could be quashed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases mainly submitted that there was no new material before the police, or the Court, for ordering further enquiry and in that regard the learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Phulena Rai V/s. The State of Bihar; 1979 B.B.C.J. 219. It was held by their lordships that police had statutory right to investigate a cognizable case and could reopen the investigation but in exceptional circumstances, and not in a routine manner and on such fresh material, which could not be obtained earlier.

8. However, the facts as obtaining in that case are a bit different. In that case charge-sheet was first submitted and cognizance of offence was taken but thereafter the Public Prosecutor concerned obtained permission of the Court to withdraw that case on 25.11.1975. Thereafter there was a change in the Government, the accused belonging to a political party, and a revision petition was filed by the State before the Sessions Judge on 1.12.1977 for setting aside the order of the Magistrate allowing withdrawal of case, which gave rise to a Criminal revision, which, however, was withdrawn by the State