JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Heard Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Counsel for the applicants argues that the present application has been filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2004 whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in case crime no.C-1/2002, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC has allowed the application filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Varanasi permitting them to re-investigate the matter.

3. The facts in brief are that the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging the forgery committed upon him by the applicants. The matter was investigated by the police authority and a final report was submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 10.01.2003 before the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate vide its order dated 01.07.2003 has accepted the said final report, which is placed on record as Annexure-5. Subsequent to the acceptance of the final report, an application dated 13.10.2004 was filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau before the court concerned stating that in terms of the investigation completed by the police authority a final report was filed, which has been accepted by the court below, however, the State authorities on the basis of some new facts which had come to its knowledge wants to reinvestigate the matter and thus requested that the said authority be permitted to ‘re-investigate’ the matter in exercise of power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. The said application was allowed by the Magistrate concerned vide its order dated 14.10.2004 recording that an application has been filed for reinvestigation and as the offence is grave in nature, the permission is granted.

4. Counsel for the applicant argues that although the law is very well settled on the question of reinvestigation and argues that although in the interest of justice when the matter is pending before the Magistrate, he has the authority to permit further investigation, re-investigation cannot be done by the Magistrate moreso after the acceptance of the final report, as has been done in the present case. He further argues that the police authority had investigated the matter at the earlier instance and had filed the final report, thus, a new agency namely Anti-Corruption Bureau had no authority to file an application seeking permission to re-investigate the matter and thus the order suffers from arbitrariness on that ground also.

5. Counsel for the applicant further argues that once the final report is accepted by the Magistrate, he becomes functus officio and coupled with the fact that there was no protest petition on record, it was only the higher/superior Court which could have directed for further investigation and in any event the re-investigation could not have been directed but only by the Superior Court. He further argues that the application was filed seeking permission for re-investigation at the instance of third party who has no concern with either the informant or the police authority and has merely stated that he is the power-of-attorney holder of opposite party no.2 without producing any record to substantiate the averments thus, the order is liable to be set aside.

6. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cas of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others [2012 LawSuit(SC) 845], K. Chandrasekhar etc. Vs. The State of Kerala & Others [1998(4) Supreme 374] in support of his submissions.

7. Counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments to argue that Cr.P.C. is very clear in terms of the power conferred upon the Magistrate which has been lucidly explained by the Supreme Court in judgments cited above.

8. Learned AGA on the other hand argues that there is no error in the order passed by the court concerned inasmuch as the intent of the Court is to find out the truth and thus,