The petitioner Satendra Singh has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India requesting for issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside the order impugned dated 18.2.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in G.R. No. 739 of 2007 arising out of Rehala (Palamau) P.S. Case No. 30 of 2007 whereby the petition filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi seeking permission to re-investigate the case of Rehala (Palamau) P.S. Case No. 30 of 2007 was rejected.

2. The prosecution story in short as stands narrated in the written report of Ranjeet Singh (Informant/Intervener/Respondent No.4) was that on 27.5.2007 his uncle Dr. Sashidhar Singh (since deceased) had as usual proceeded from the house to his medicine shop followed by the informant after a short while. When his uncle arrived near the shop and compound of one Giridhar Singh, the informant witnessed that his uncle having been apprehended by as many as 8 named accused persons who suddenly appeared there started shouting to kill him and in the same sequence the accused Ajay Singh fired shot from his pistol causing injuries to Sashidhar Singh. On the alarm there being raised by the informant the assailants escaped though the occurrence was witnessed by Kundan Singh, Manoj Singh, Giridhar Singh and Kamal Singh as also by the nearby people, who assembled there. The victim was immediately brought to Garhwa Hospital where he succumbed during treatment. Disclosing the genesis, the informant narrated that the assailants on account of old enmity committed murder of his uncle by firing shot and that they had also killed his father and his another uncle in the past.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, the Director General and Inspector General of Police in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Clause 410(Il)(b)(11) read with Clause 425 of Bihar Police Manual, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand, directed Shri Rajeshwar Prasad. Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department of the State by entrustment to reinvestigate the Rehala (Palamau) P .S. Case No. 30 of 2007 and pursuant to such direction Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Inspector of Police filed a petition on 7.2.2008 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj seeking permission as aforesaid but the same was rejected on 18.2.2008 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the C.J.M., Daltonganj committed grave error of law by not considering the request and thereby refusing to allow the Inspector to reinvestigate the case.

4. The learned counsel Mr. Jitendra S. Singh for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order submitted that Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enables a police officer to carry on further investigation even after submission of the charge-sheet and that the court may stay commitment proceeding in that event till conclusion of further investigation to avoid any anomaly or inconsistency in the trial.

5. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks about the submission of final form after investigation of a case. Sub-clause (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. envisages that as soon as the investigation is complete, the Investigating Officer shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating the facts mentioned in sub-clause (a) to (f). Sub-section 8 of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. speaks:-

"Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evide