ORDER

1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The case has been assigned to this Court in pursuance to the notification issued by the High Court in pursuance to the order of the Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.699/2016- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and others. The petitioner being a member of Legislative Assembly, Semariya Assembly, Rewa and as such, this matter is placed before this Court.

3. As per the facts of the case, the respondent No.4 who was working as a Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sirmour, District Rewa lodged an FIR on 16.08.2022 making an allegation against the accused persons but in the said FIR there was neither any whisper about the present petitioner nor any allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in the alleged crime. In pursuance to the FIR, offence got registered vide Crime No.354 on 2022 against five persons under sections 341, 342, 294, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 325 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet was filed before the Court below against the five persons but investigation was left open against some other accused persons as per section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

4. One application under section 190 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 18.11.2022 before the Court below by the complainant and the said application was decided by the Court below by impugned order dated 24.11.2022 directing the investigating authority to investigate the matter and collect evidence against the petitioner because cognizance has been taken by the Court against him also under sections 120-B, 341, 342, 294, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 325 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code and summon was issued against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.11.2022 before this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the entire proceedings initiated against him vide order dated 24.11.2022 and also the order taking cognizance against him in RCT Case No. 754/2022. The quashment has also been sought of order dated 8.12.2022 passed by the Revisional Court, dismissing the revision against the order dated 24.11.2022 saying that the revision was not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Court is without jurisdiction because direction for investigation under section 190 of Cr.P.C. cannot be passed by the Court but under the said section, the Court can take cognizance against the accused named in the charge-sheet or can discharge them. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and the High Court saying that the Court cannot suo moto direct for further investigation or re-investigate the matter. He placed reliance upon the decisions reported in case of Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 9 SCC 129, Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others (2017) 4 SCC 177 and also in a case of Tula Ram and Others v. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459. He further submits that it is clear from the provisions of section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. that the investigating team while submitting the charge-sheet can make a request to the Magistrate that further investigation is required for collecting more material and evidence and the Magistrate on the basis of the report submitted under section 173(2) is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.. However, if it is said by the investigating team that no case is made out against the accused, even then the Court cannot direct for further investigation.

7. The Supreme Court in case of Reeta Nag (supra) has observed as under:-

“17. Mr Venugopal submitted that the view taken by the High Court was on the basis of the settled position of law that having taken cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct a reinvestigation of the case under sub-section (8) of