The court upheld that a magistrate can order further investigation when necessary for justice, even if prior applications for similar purposes were denied.

O R D E R

The first respondent/accused in Crl.M.P.No.1973/2014 in C.C.No.217/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The case was charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeri in Crime No.465/2011 of Manjeri police station, which was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the defacto complainant before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, which was forwarded to the concerned Station House Officer through proper channel, against the revision petitioner alleging an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.217/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. When the revision petitioner appeared, after hearing both sides charge was framed for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter the case was posted for evidence and summons was issued on Cws 1 to 3. At that time, the complainant came to understand that expert opinion on the handwriting of the revision petitioner was not obtained. So he earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.998/2014 for sending the document for expert opinion alleging that the case cannot be proved without that evidence. But that petition was dismissed on the ground that the application is not maintainable as the application can be filed only by the Public Prosecutor concerned and also observed that in view of the bar under section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) since he was not in custody during the course of investigation, such a petition cannot be entertained and dismissed the application. Thereafter, the complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.1973/2014 for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code for enabling the investigating officer to conduct investigation in respect of the letter said to have been given by the revision petitioner and that application was allowed, which is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing this petition.

4. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

5. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the purpose for which further investigation was ordered was agitated by the petitioner by filing Crl.M.P.No.998/2013 which was dismissed earlier and the present petition is also filed for the same purpose which should not have been allowed by the court below. Further, even during further investigation, in view of the bar under section 311A of the Code, the investigating agency cannot compel the petitioner to give his handwriting or signature. So the court below was not justified in ordering further investigation under such circumstances.

6. The counsel for the first respondent submitted that if the court feels that for the purpose of proper administration of justice further investigation is required, the court can order further investigation. That power cannot be curtailed. Further, if further investigation is ordered, the investigating agency can adopt all legal methods for collecting the handwriting and that can be sent for expert opinion and that will only aid the investigating agency to come to a correct conclusion as to whether the offence alleged has been established or not and no prejudice will be caused to the revision petitioner as well.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the submission of the counsel for the first respondent.

8. The case of the defacto complainant was that there was some transaction between the revision petitioner and the first respondent, in which some amount was obtained from the defacto complainant by the revision petitioner and he did not pay the amount and so he filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram which was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Manjeri for proper action, on the basis of whic