1. Relief is sought under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Petitioners are the accused persons in C.C.314/2011 on the file of the court of the judicial magistrate of the first class, Erattupetta. They allegedly committed offences punishable under Secs 427 and 447 of IPC read with IPC 34. They seek to quash the criminal prosecution against them.

2. Facts are simple and go as under : The compound wall of the property of the 1st respondent was demolished on the night of 3.4.2011. He filed a complaint before the magistrate. It was alleged in it that the compound wall was demolished by petitioners 1 and 2 and two others who could be identified by sight. The learned magistrate forwarded the complaint to the local station house officer under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The station house officer was directed to hold an investigation. Thereupon an FIR was registered. Investigation was conducted. A report under Sec. 173(2) of Cr.P.C was filed. A copy of it is annex-A. The petitioners moved a Crl.M.C before this court to get annex-A final report quashed. This court dismissed the said Crl.M.C holding that there were sufficient allegations in the final report, if proved, to sustain a conviction. Annex-F is a copy of the said order. Thereafter the 3rd petitioner submitted annex-B petition to the director general of police seeking further investigation. Further investigation was conducted. A report under Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C was filed. Annex-C is a copy of the said report. The request therein was to close the case as undetected. The 1st respondent moved annex-E application seeking permission under Sec.302 of Cr.P.C for conducting the prosecution by himself. The said application was allowed by the learned magistrate as per annex-D order. This court is now called upon to quash annex-D order. It is also requested to quash all further proceedings arising from annex-A final report.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the 1st respondent.

4. The learned magistrate took cognizance of offences under Secs 427 and 447 of IPC against the petitioners upon annex-A final report. The case was taken on file as C.C.314/2011. The attempt of the petitioners to get annex-A quashed failed. However, further investigation was conducted and annex-C report under Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C was filed. It was a negative report requesting to close the case as undetected. A report under Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C does not supersede the report under Sec.173(2) Cr.P.C. A further or supplementary report is not intended to erase the original report and its substitution by a new report. It is held so by this court in State v. Gopakumar (1988 (1) KLT 924). The apex court holds that one of the significant features of further investigation is that it does not have the effect of wiping out directly or indirectly the initial investigation conducted by the investigating agency. The decision is Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali ((2013) 5 SCC 762). The cognizance taken on the original police report does not get cancelled by reason of the filing of the report under Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C, whether negative or not. Therefore, when cognizance is taken upon the report under Sec.173(2) of Cr.P.C, the proceedings should go on and end in its logical conclusion according to law and procedure, despite the filing of a negative report under Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C. The proceedings cannot be dropped or closed on receipt of a negative report under Sec. 173(8). The petitioners are therefore not entitled to get the criminal prosecution against them quashed on the ground that a negative report was filed under Sec. 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

5. Sec. 302 of Cr.P.C permits any magistrate holding an inquiry or a trial to permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than a police officer below the rank of an inspector. The learned magistrate as per annex-D order permitted the 1st respondent to conduct the prosecution. He was the person aggrieved. His was the compound wall demolished. The conduct of the prosecution was giv