Sirpurkar, J.-- 1. By order dated 12.1.2017, the Court had observed that following four preliminary questions arise for consideration before the Full Bench :

(i) Whether an application for withdrawal by the petitioner can be considered by this Bench or it is required to be posted before the Division Bench for consideration?

(ii) Since no question has been formulated by referring bench; whether the Full Bench has jurisdiction to delve into the matter and cull out for itself the questions involved and then answer them?

(iii) Whether the Full Bench has jurisdiction to call for and decide Criminal Revisions No. 581/2016 and 599/2016, which allegedly involve the same question, analogously with MCrC No. 17270/2016 ?

(iv) Whether in view of pendency of the lis challenging the order dated 8.7.2016 passed in MCrC No. 9915/2015 before the Supreme Court, the Full Bench should stay its hands for the present ?

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned amicus curiae on all four questions, at length. For the sake of convenience, the Bench shall firstly consider question no. (iii). This matter has been referred to the Full Bench on the direction of Hon’ble Acting the Chief Justice dated 25.10.2016. in view of order dated 14.10.2016, passed by a division bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K.Seth and Hon’ble Shri Justice G.S. Ahluwalia. The Division Bench in its order dated 14.10.2016 had made following observations :

" The aforesaid judgment has been followed and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, [AIR 2003 SC 2612]. Thus, it is clear that once the charge-sheet is filed, merely because the investigating agency had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter, the charge-sheet cannot be quashed as it is not possible to say that cognizance on an invalid police report is prohibited and, is, therefore, a nullity.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we respectfully differ from the order rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in MCrC No. 9915/2015. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the papers before Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice for necessary orders to resolve the controversy.

Aforesaid directions were made by the division bench in the backdrop of the earlier judgment passed by another division bench comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele and Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi in MCrC No. 9915/2015, whereby the final report under section 173(2) of the CrPC in Crime No. 47/2015 registered by P.S. Harda, District-Harda and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed holding as follows :

In this view of the matter, the investigation conducted by the local police and the charge-sheet filed by the police against the petitioner is without power and authority in regard to special offences i.e. punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, because the matter is interrelated hence, it would not be appropriate that local police may prosecute the petitioner for other offences also. Consequently, the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide Crime No. 47/2015 registered at Police Station Harda are hereby quashed being without jurisdiction. It is hereby clarified that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the competence of competent prosecuting Agency.

The matter has been referred to a Larger Bench presumably under rule 12 of Chapter IV of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, as rule 8 applies to a case where a substantial question of law of general importance is involved and not where an earlier decision of a co-ordinate Bench requires reconsideration. Though, it may be noted that no question has been formulated for reference to the Larger Bench.

3. Thus, it is clear that the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench to resolve the controversy which arose because the division Bench headed by Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Seth did not concur with the view take