The revision petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No. 36 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Adhoc- II, Kasaragod,. The revision petitioner married one Haseena on 13-11-2005 and a child also was born in that wedlock. The dead body of his wife Haseena, aged 22 years was found floating at about 4 p.m. on 9-8-2008in the Chandragiri river, far away from her matrimonial home where she was staying at that time. According to the version of the inmates of the house of the accused, on the previous day (8-8-2008) at about 7 p.m. while Haseena and the accused were about to go to the house of Haseena, a quarrel took place between the spouses over a trivial issue and Haseena ran inside the house and cut her vein and was thereafter missing. According to the father and other close relatives of Haseena, when they reached the house of the accused after getting the news about her disappearance, they had seen blood stains in the bedroom as well as on the dress of the accused and his mother. At 10 a.m. on 9-8-2008 the Kasaragod Police registered a case as Crime No. 560 of 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 306 I.P.C. The investigation was conducted by the Dy.S.P., Kasaragod who charge-sheeted the revision petitioner/accused for the aforementioned offences on 7-10-2008.The learned Magistrate concerned, after initiating committal proceedings finally committed the case to the Court of Session on 12-12-2008. The case was made over to the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod for trial. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Addl. Sessions Judge issued process and the case was posted for the appearance of the revision petitioner/accused to 28-7-2009. On that day, C.W.2 the father of deceased Haseena filed an application under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation alleging that the investigation so far conducted was not satisfactory and that even though the victim had cut injuries on her body and the accused and his family members had assaulted the victim, the police reached a conclusion that this was a case of suicide without any supporting material. Thereupon, the court below, after perusing the records and hearing the Public Prosecutor passed the impugned order dated 16-9-2009 directing further investigation preferably by an efficient and sincere officer to be chosen by the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod. It is the said order which is assailed in this Revision by the accused.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused made the following submissions before me in support of the Revision:-

Since the Court below passed the impugned order after cognizance was taken and after the accused had entered appearance, he should have been heard in the matter. The observation by the court below that there is nothing on record to rule out the possibility of murder would indicate the prejudiced mind of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who was virtually accepting the contentions of the father of the deceased and the Public Prosecutor. In Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others -(2009) 9 SCC 129, the Apex Court has held that re- investigation or further investigation under Sec. 173 (8) Cr.P.C. at the behest of the de facto complainant after the framing of court charge against one of the accused, the other accused having been discharged, was not proper. In Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna -AIR 2009 SC 2932 the Apex Court criticized the order passed for further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C without indicating in what respect the earlier investigation had not been carried out and what were the hidden truth which were required to be unearthed. When the investigation was conducted by no less an officer than the Dy.S.P. of Kasaragod, there was nothing to suspect the fair and impartial investigation conducted by him and this was a clear case of suicide and the only offences, if any, which can be made out are those punishable under Sec. 498 A and 306 I.P.C.

3. I am a