G.Sasidharan, J.

An order made by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda refusing to give direction for conducting further investigation of the crime by saying that the magistrate has no power to give such direction is under challenge. The petition was filed before the Magistrate by the defacto complainant requesting that further investigation of the crime has to be conducted. The Magistrate took the decision that he has no power for giving direction for conducting further investigation. The question whether in the circumstances of the case it was necessary for giving direction for conducting further investigation of the crime was not considered on merits.

2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and it was after that the defacto complainant filed an application for giving direction to the investigating agency to conduct further investigation of the crime. Even though the order does not say that the Magistrate has no power to direct further investigation of a case in which cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate what has to be understood from a reading of the order is that the dismissal of the application for giving direction for conducting further investigation was for the reason that the Magistrate has no power to do that.

3. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallbha Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2332) the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider about the powers of the court under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for giving direction for conducting further investigation. That was a case in which police filed final report before the Magistrate after conducting investigation referring the case as “mistake of fact”. But the Magistrate was not prepared to accept the report filed by the police and made an order for further investigation of the crime. Further investigation was conducted by the investigating agency and an additional report was filed saying that the accused committed the offence. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on receipt of the report and issued warrant of arrest against the accused. When the accused approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order further investigation after receipt of the first report of the police and that the allegations in the complaint would not constitute an offence, the High Court dismissed the petition and the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the Magistrate has the power to order further investigation in a crime in which final report had already been filed by the investigating agency. Here, the question which comes up for consideration is whether the Magistrate can direct further investigation of the crime after taking cognizance of the offence. In paragraph 10 of the judgment the Supreme Court says that police have the power to conduct further investigation after filing final report and that power is recognized under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. The Court went on to say that the only rider is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation. After saying that even after the court takes cognizance of any offence on the strength of police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation, the Supreme Court observed that in such a situation the powers of the court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. In making the above observation what the Supreme Court said was that the Court is having the power to direct the police to conduct further investigation and that observation has to be understood as one by which the Supreme Court held that even