BADRUL BORBHUIYA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr SM Suna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr.PP assisted by Mr. B Khyriem, learned Addl. PP appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

(2.) This criminal petition is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short 'CJM') dated 09.07.2015 passed in Shillong Sadar PS Case No.14(1) 2015 wherein and where -under, the learned CJM, after careful perusal of the FR under Section 173 of the Cr.PC. as well as ejahar, was of the opinion that all means had not been exhausted by the IO and accordingly, the CJM did not accept the FR. After coming to the said finding, the learned CJM directed the I/O to reinvestigate the case.

(3.) Mr. SM Suna, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contended that the report submitted by the I/O after completion of the investigation is not binding to the Magistrate. He further contended that under Section 173(8) of the CrPC the concerned Magistrate still had the jurisdiction to direct the investigating authority for further investigation. It is his submission that in the present case by the impunged order dated 07.07.2015, the learned CJM had sent down the case to the I/O for reivestigation. The learned CJM had no jurisdiction to send down the case to the I/O for reinvestigation inasmuch as reinvestigation is only in the case of fresh cause of action. For easy reference, Section 173 of the Cr PC Report of police officer on completion of investigation is quoted herein below: -