The main legal point established in the judgment is that the aggrieved party does not have the right to seek further investigation through the CBI after the charge sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. Further investigation can only be sought by the police/prosecution based on additional materials or evidence.

The Crl.O.P.No.23943 of 2012 filed by the de-facto complainant with a prayer to direct the 1st respondent to withdraw the investigation in Crime No.576 of 2005 pending in his file to the 2nd respondent namely CBI to conduct further investigation.

2. The petitioner/de-facto complainant contended that there was no proper investigation by the Central Crime Branch at Chennai and the charge sheet filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai is totally incomplete and hence warrants further investigation at the hands of the 2nd respondent CBI.

3. Per contra, the petitioners/accused in Crl.O.P.No.10828 of 2012 vehemently contended that the prayer is not maintainable and the de-facto complainant has no locus standi to seek further investigation in view of the provisions in Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. As per Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. the powers vest only with the investigating agency to seek further investigation and to support the said contention, relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State og Gujarat and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC(Cri) 1006 and the judgment of this Court in the case of A. Mohan and others v. State, rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Colleroon Police Station, Trichy and another reported in 2012 (1) MWN (Cr.) 535.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the investigation was duly conducted based on the available records and proper charge sheet has been filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.590 of 2012, no further investigation is warranted in the instant case and also reiterated the provisions in Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

5. I heard Mr. Manivannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire records.

6. The important question of law involved in this Criminal Original Petition is whether this Court having power to direct further investigation in Crime No.576 of 2005 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct further investigation in spite of the fact that the 1st respondent had already filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.590 of 2012 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

7. It is the case of the petitioner is that being the defacto-complainant, he is aggrieved party entitled to further investigation through the 2nd respondent Central Bureau of Investigation. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the aggrieved party cannot seek further investigation invoking Article 32 of the Constitution. It has been further held that if any aggrieved party feels that in some of areas of the charge sheet, investigation is inadequate, the aggrieved party namely, the prosecution alone can file only an Application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation.

8. The aggrieved party stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be interpreted and read it conformity with the provision under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., and the Hon'ble Apex Court stated in the case of Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (2) MWN (Cr.) 43 (SC) in para 12 is as follows:

“12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2009 (2) MWN (Cr.) 43 (SC) : 2009 (6) SCC 346, has held as follows:

“17. From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of the Police Report under sub-section (2) on completion of the investigation, the Police has a right to 'further' investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not 'fresh investigation' or 'reinvestigation'. The meaning of 'further is additional, more or supplemental. 'Further' investigation, therefore, is the continuation of th