The proceedings from which this Crl. M.C arises has its genesis in the case registered by the police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on the death of the wife of the petitioner. In the course of the investigation it was revealed that the petitioner and his mother had subjected the deceased to cruelty and the investigation ended with the filing of a report by the Dy.S.P concerned under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C alleging commission of the offence under Section 498A IPC by the petitioner and his mother, who died subsequently. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner, who faced trial. After the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C the learned Magistrate passed Annexure-A7 order, the reasons for which are irrelevant. The relevant directions in the order are these:

“The police is directed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C to conduct a further investigation in the case by invoking their powers u/s.173(8) Cr.P.C.

As the original investigation in the case was conducted by the then ASP Punalur, the further investigation in the case will be entrusted by District Police Chief Kollam (Rural) to any competent officer under his command and control.

The said officer will conduct a foolproof further investigation in accordance with law and the same will be supervised by DPC, Kollam (Rural)”.

2. Pursuant to the above direction further investigation was conducted and Annexure-A8 supplementary report was filed alleging commission of the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate took the case on his file as CP No.144 of 2014. The legality of Annexure-A7 order of the learned Magistrate and Annexure-A8 supplementary report of the police is challenged.

3. Two questions arise for consideration:

1) Was it legal for the Magistrate to suo motu order further investigation after taking cognizance on police report and issuing process to the petitioner.

2) Is the direction to the District Police Chief to entrust the investigation to “any competent officer under his command or control” legal.

4. 'Further investigation' is a term used in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The said provision does not explicitly empower Magistrates to order further investigation. In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another (1985) 2 SCC 537 a three Judge of the Supreme Court held that there are three options for a Magistrate when a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C is received to the effect that an offence apprears to have been committed by the accused: 1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or 2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceedings, or 3) he may direct further investigation under sub section 3 of Section 156 Cr.P.C and require the police to make a further report. So there cannot be any doubt that the Magistrate has power to order further investigation on receipt of a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The power flows from Section 156(3) of the Code. This has been reiterated in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2008 (1) KLT 724).

5. Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State, Delhi Administration (AIR 1997 SC 639) and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal ((2009) 9 SCC 129) and of a Division Bench of this court in Abdul Latheef v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 905) require notice.

6. In Abdul Latheef v. State of Kerala (supra) the Division Bench has made the following observation:

“From all the above, it can safely be concluded that when the court has the power to direct the investigating agency to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C in a matter even after taking cognizance on the final report filed by the investigating agency before it under S.173(2) Cr.P.C, either the de facto complainant, who is aggrieved on account of any lapse committed by the investigating agency in conducting the investigation or in not conducting the investigation in another line to which it ought to have been conducted, or the Publ