By the Court.—This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 15.1.2016 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bahraich in relation to Case Crime No. 701 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich.

2. Order dated 26.5.2016 notices the gist of the contention made on behalf of the petitioner and brief facts of the case. For brevity’s sake, order dated 26.5.2016, is extracted here below :

1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 15th January, 2016 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, directing further investigation in Case Crime No. 701 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant has argued that investigation in regard to crime registered on 2.8.2013 was concluded by way of filing charge-sheet in Court on 18th November, 2013. The Magistrate took cognizance of offence on 19th February, 2014. Thereafter, the accused were required to appear in Court, however, they did not appear. Non-bailable warrant had to be issued more than twenty times for procuring presence of the accused. When in normal course non-bailable warrant could not be executed, Superintendent of Police, Bahraich was asked to take necessary action vide Annexure-3 dated 14.1.2016. Rather than executing non-bailable warrant, impugned order has been passed on 15.1.2016.

3. It has been further argued that defect in earlier investigation has not been pointed out by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich in the impugned order. There is no reason spelt out in the order for further investigation. On the asking of accused side, the impugned order has been passed in mala fide exercise of power, which has frustrated administration of criminal justice.

4. Learned counsel, in the above noted facts and circumstances, seeks time to cite law.

5. List on 6th June, 2016.”

3. It is evident that vide the impugned order, re-investigation has been ordered by Superintendent of Police, Bahraich.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgement rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, to contend that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction.

5. The Court has taken into account that the petitioner is the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the investigating agency has not been able to dispute the legal position to the effect that “re-investigation” or “de novo” investigation cannot be ordered by the police functionaries.

7. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in context of the law.

8. Relevant portion of Section 173 (1) and (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) reads as under :

“173(1). Every investigation under this chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.

XXXXXXXXX

(8) 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 evidence in the form prescribed ; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).”

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi’s case (supra), has considered the scope of ‘investigation’ as provided under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and report to be filed under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The judgement further details scope of ‘further investigation’ under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The difference between ‘investigation’, ‘further investigation’, and ‘re-investigation’ or