Once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, any order directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. must be preceded by notice to the accused to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.376 of 2025 in C.C.No.1500 of 2024 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto Complainant filed a protest petition contending that the investigation conducted by the police in Crime No.270 of 2020 was perfunctory and incomplete, as the Investigating Officer had failed to examine the Sub-Registrar and relevant officials, did not obtain and send the disputed signatures and thumb impressions for expert opinion, and did not verify the passport and travel records though it was alleged that the forged Special Power of Attorney was created on the false pretext that he was residing in the USA. Despite notice, the Assistant Public Prosecutor before the trial Court did not file any counter. Upon hearing the Petitioner and perusing the material on record, the trial Court held that the investigation lacked scientific verification and proper enquiry on crucial aspects, and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, concluded that it had power to order further investigation; accordingly, the protest petition was allowed and the matter was referred to the Investigating Officer for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/accused filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Sri K. Rama Chandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was illegal, improper and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who were the accused and aggrieved parties in the case. He further submitted that after filing of the charge sheet on 26.06.2024 and taking cognizance, the protest petition filed by the 2nd respondent on 12.03.2025 was not maintainable, and the trial Court erred in entertaining the same. He contended that the police had already conducted investigation in accordance with law and that the Court could not direct the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation in a particular manner, as the discretion in investigation lay exclusively with the police. He further contended that the protest petition could not be treated as an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., especially when multiple reliefs such as taking cognizance, addition of sections of law and ordering further investigation were sought in a single petition, which was not legally permissible. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Criminal Revision Case was a clear abuse of process, filed only to stall a lawful and necessary further investigation ordered to cure glaring defects in a perfunctory chargesheet relating to serious offences of forgery and fraudulent transfer of property. He contended that the trial Court had rightly exercised plenary powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., as affirmed in Vinubh