Advocates:
Brijesh Sahai, Arun Srivastava and Vishal Shukla for the Applicant; K.N. Bajpayee for the Opposite Parties.

The legal document discusses the procedural aspects and legal principles related to the summoning of an accused and the conduct of further investigation in criminal proceedings. The key points are as follows:

1. Order of Summoning: The order summoning the applicant as an accused was scrutinized for being non-speaking and cryptic. However, it was clarified that under the relevant procedural provisions, a detailed order or reasons are not mandatorily required for summoning an accused, as the law does not impose such a requirement (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. Legal Requirements for Orders: The law emphasizes that the Magistrate's primary obligation at the stage of summoning is to form an opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, which can be inferred from the entire record rather than requiring a detailed, reasoned order (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. Nature of Further Investigation: The court clarified that "further investigation" is a continuation of the initial investigation and not a fresh or re-investigation. It does not wipe out the previous investigation but supplements it, and no court permission is necessary for conducting such further investigation (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. Re-investigation vs. Further Investigation: Re-investigation is distinguished from further investigation; the former involves starting a new investigation from scratch, while the latter is an extension of the existing one. The law permits further investigation without order or permission, provided it is a continuation of the initial investigation (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. Validity of the Charge-sheet: The submission that the charge-sheet filed after further investigation was invalid because it was a reinvestigation is rejected. The description of the charge-sheet as "mool" (main) rather than "supplementary" does not alter its legal standing as a continuation of the initial investigation (!) .

6. Permission for Further Investigation: The law permits police to conduct further investigation without prior approval of the court, especially when the investigation is a continuation of the initial inquiry, and the law explicitly allows such investigations under the relevant procedural provisions (!) (!) .

7. Sufficiency of Evidence: The evidence collected during the investigation, including witness statements and statements recorded during further investigation, was deemed sufficient to justify summoning the applicant as an accused. The court emphasized that the evidence on record was adequate for the order of summoning (!) .

8. Legal Principles on Summoning and Investigation: The court reinforced that detailed reasons or reasons recorded in the order are not mandatory for summoning an accused, and that the entire record can be considered to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding (!) (!) .

9. Conclusion: The application to quash the summoning order was dismissed, affirming that the procedures followed were in accordance with legal provisions and that the evidence was sufficient to justify the summoning of the applicant (!) (!) .

In summary, the document emphasizes that procedural formalities such as detailed reasoning are not obligatory at the stage of summoning, that further investigation is a continuation rather than a re-investigation, and that such investigations do not require court permission. The sufficiency of evidence during investigation is the key factor in summoning an accused.