1. - By the instant criminal misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 09/2002 Police Station, Nava Shahar, district Nagaur.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, public prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the non petitioner complainant. Perused the material placed on record.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said FIR was investigated by the police and after investigation, the police filed a negative final report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nava. The negative final report has not yet been accepted by the court below. However, they apprehend that the investigating agency would take the matter back and make further investigation and therefore seeks quashing of FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2001 AIR SCW 3064 , in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and others, 2004 AIR SCW 2063 and in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala 2001 Cri.L.J. 3329 (SC) .

4. Learned public prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the non-petitioner No.2 have relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Mahima @ Mahimananda Mishra and Ors., 2003 (1) W.L.C. (SC) Criminal, 211 .

5. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala in para 19 of the report, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer-in-charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Sections 156 and 157 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form opinion under Sections 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the Court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C.

6. In Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra), the Apex Court held as under:-

"Although the said sub-section does not, in specific terms, mention about the powers of the Court to order further investigation, the power of the police to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can be triggered into motion at the instance of the Court. When any such order is passed by a Court which has the jurisdiction to do so it would not be a proper exercise of revisional powers to interfere therewith because the further investigation would only be for the ends of justice. After the further investigation, the authority conducting such investigation can either reach the same conclusion and reiterate it or it can reach a different conclusion. During such extended investigation the officers can either act on the same materials or on other materials which may come to their notice. It is for the investigating agency to exercise its power when it is put back to that track. If they come to the same conclusion it is of added advantage to the persons against whom the allegations were made, and if the allegations are found false again the complainant would be in trouble. So, from any point of view the Special Judge's direction would be of advantage for the ends of justice. It is too premature for the High Court to predict that the Investigating Officer would not be able to collect any further material at all. That is an area which should have been left to the Investigating Officer to survey and recheck."

7. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others (supra) the