The absence of specific reasons in an application for further investigation renders the Magistrate's order permitting such investigation invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1482/2021 on the files of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi, alleging offences punishable under Sections 5 and 354(D) (1) (ii) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that; defacto complainant is doing her research at Calicut University. The accused in the above case is the Assistant Professor of English at the said University. The accused, on several occasions, directly and over the phone stalked the defacto complainant and also outraged her modesty by touching her hand. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

3. The final report in this case was filed in the year

2021. According to the petitioner, he filed Crl.M.C No.597/2022, before this Court for early disposal of the case, and this Court directed the trial court to dispose of the case within four months. Thereafter, the Ext.P1 Order was passed by this Court. Subsequently, the Ext.P3 application was filed by the Investigating officer stating that further investigation is necessary. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 objection to the same. But, as per Ext.P5 Order, further investigation of the application is allowed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition (Crl) is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. This Court perused the Ext.P3 application. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above application:

6. Absolutely, no reason is mentioned for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. deals with further investigation. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C says that, nothing in that section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after report under Sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 has been forwarded to the Magistrate and whereupon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtained further evidence oral or documentary evidence. From the above, it is clear that there is no bar in conducting further investigation. But before approaching the Court, the investigating officer has to collect further evidence. A perusal of Ext.P3 does not indicate that any such evidence is collected by the investigating ofÏcer. The reason for further investigation is also not mentioned in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is a vague application. Based on Ext.P3, the impugned order is passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate found that there are some lacuna in the investigation. There is no such case in Ext.P3 Application, and there is no such pleadings in Ext.P3. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate need not find out the lacuna in investigation, at that stage. But, I make it clear that, if there is further evidence obtained, whether oral or documentary, the investigating officer can collect the same and submit the application before the Jurisdictional Court for further investigation. I am of the considered opinion that, based on Ext.P3, the learned Magistrate erred in passing Ext.P5 order, because Ext.P3 is a vague petition. Therefore, Ext.P5 can be set aside. But, I make it clear that, if there is any further oral or documentary evidence obtained, the investigating officer can do the needful in accordance with law.

Therefore, this Writ Petition (Crl) is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P5 is set aside. The trial court will proceed with the case as directed by this Court in the Ext.P1 judgment. But, I make it clear that the investigating officer is free to do the needful in accordance with law, if there is any further oral or documentary evidence.