# Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 392
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 23383 of 2022
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-kumar-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47830
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 498-A & 323 - Dowry Prohibition
Act,1961 - Section3/4 - The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent
power
,
matrimonial
dispute
between the husband and wife should be a
quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire dispute amongst themself
through compromise - proceedings relating
to matrimonial dispute can be quashed in
exercise of power under Section-482 Cr.P.C.
(Para -12 )

Matrimonial dispute between husband and wife
- charge sheet - quashing of - compromise -
hence application u/s 482 Cr.P.C..

HELD:-Parties reached/arrived at compromise/
settlement. Conviction of opposite party remote
and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceeding
despite settlement and compromise would amount
to abuse of process of law.(Para - 14,15)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bombay
High
Court
in
the
abovementioned Pramila Mahesh Shah's case in
respect of the provision of Section 204 (2)
and (3), that these are the provisions which
are directory in nature and that the court
would have to see whether breach of these
provisions would cause any prejudice,
which is required to be adjudged on the
basis of the stage of proceedings in a
particular case. At the initial stage if it is
found that the accused has been summoned
without providing him a copy of complaint
and list of witnesses being relied upon by
the complainant, the same can be directed
to be provided to him within a reasonable
time by the complainant as soon as the
accused appears before court and that
merely because the list of witnesses and a
copy of complaint have not been provided
as mentioned in the above provisions would
by itself not vitiate the proceedings
depending
upon
the
stage
of
the
proceedings................... "

25. Therefore, from the above
discussions, I find no merit in the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the
applicants and the instant application is,
accordingly, dismissed.

26. However, it would be appropriate
to direct the trial court to provide a list of
witnesses within a period of four weeks
from the date of passing this order so as to
applicants may contest the matter on
merits.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 392
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2022 &
13.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 23383 of 2022

Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Sri Swatantra
Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Gyan Prakash Dwivedi

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 498-A & 323 - Dowry Prohibition
Act,1961 - Section3/4 - The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent
power
,
matrimonial
dispute
between the husband and wife should be a
quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire dispute amongst themself
through compromise - proceedings relating
to matrimonial dispute can be quashed in
exercise of power under Section-482 Cr.P.C.
(Para -12 )

Matrimonial dispute between husband and wife
- charge sheet - quashing of - compromise -
hence application u/s 482 Cr.P.C..

HELD:-Parties reached/arrived at compromise/
settlement. Conviction of opposite party remote
and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceeding
despite settlement and compromise would amount
to abuse of process of law.(Para - 14,15)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & anr. , 2003
in Appeal (crl.) No.383 of 2003

2. Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (2022) Law Suit (Alld) 104

3. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr., (2012) 10
SCC 303

4. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & ors.,
(2014) 6 SCC 466
11 All. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
393
5. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors., (2019) 5
SCC 688

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Gyan
Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 and and Sri M.P.S.
Gaur, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to
quash the charge sheet No.484 of 2020
dated 29.09.2020 as well as summoning
and cognizance order dated 30.07.2021
passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-IV, Allahabad filed in
Criminal Case No.322 of 2011 (State of
U.P. Vs. Amit Kumar and others) arising
out of Case Crime No.828 of 2019, under
Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC and 3/4 of
D.P. Act, Police Station-Dhoomanganj,
District-Prayagraj,
in
view
of
the
compromise dated 08.07.2022 executed
between both the parties.

3. The brief facts of the case are
opposite party No.2 (wife) had lodged an
F.I.R. on 07.08.2019 under Sections 498-A,
323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against
the applicants (Husband and his family
members)
alleging
that
marriage
of
applicant and opposite party No.2 was
solemnized in the year 2015 with Hindu
rites and rituals. From the wedlock of
applicant No.1 and opposite party No.2,
one baby girl was born, who is living with
opposite party No.2 and the present
applicant no.1. The applicants have not
been satisfied with the dowry and they
started beating and harassing her for nonfulfillment of additional demand of dowry.
Due to refusal of demand of dowry by the
opposite party No.2, applicants have beaten
her, as a result, opposite party No.2 has
received
injuries
on
her body. The
investigating officer after investigation has
submitted
charge
sheet
No.1
dated
29.09.2021 before the Court and the
cognizance was accordingly taken on
30.07.2021. In the meanwhile, due to
intervention of the relatives and well
wishers of the family, opposite party No.2
and
applicants
have
entered
into
compromise on 08.07.2022 outside the
Court and started to live together as
husband and wife along with their baby girl
having no grievance with each other. The
applicants have filed present Application
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet
dated
29.09.2020,
on
the
basis
of
compromise dated 08.07.2022. On the
matter being taken up on 31.08.2022, the
Court has proceeded to pass the following
order:-

"Counter affidavit filed today is
taken on record. Office is directed to
register the same.

Heard
Sri
Ashwani
Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri
Gyan
Prakash
Dwivedi,
learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri
Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the
State.

Learned counsel for the parties
submit
that
the
matrimonial
dispute
between applicant no.1 and opposite party
no.2 has been settled amicably and they
have decided to stay together as husband
and wife.

In view of the above, let applicant
no.1 and opposite party no.2 be present
before this Court on the next date fixed.

Put up, as fresh, on 19.09.2022.

Till the next date of listing, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants in Criminal Case No. 322 of
2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 828 of
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2019 under sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and
3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj,
District Prayagraj.

Learned counsel for the parties
shall inform their respective clients about
this order."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that proceeding of Criminal case
under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section
3/4 of D.P. Act be quashed as parties to
dispute have entered into compromise
which is evident from the compromise deed
dated 08.07.2022 and which is on the
record of the court below, a copy of which
has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the
instant application. He further submitted
that applicant No.1 and opposite party No.2
along with their baby girl are living
together. He further submitted that earlier
opposite
party
no.2
had
filed
the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and
complaint case No.1777 of 2019, under
Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, but
due to compromise, opposite party no.2 had
withdrawn the aforesaid cases; copies of
the orders have been annexed as Annexue-5
to the present application. He further
submitted that, in para-5 of his counter
affidavit, learned Counsel for the opposite
party No.2 has specifically stated that
opposite party No.2 and applicant No.1 are
peacefully living together as husband and
wife having no grievance to each other and,
as such, no useful purpose will be served to
drag present proceeding further.

5. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the applicants has
placed
reliance
upon
the
following
judgments, which reads as under:-

(1) B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State of
Haryana & Anr. decided on 13 March,
2003 in Appeal (crl.) No.383 of 2003.

(2) Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others (2022) Law
Suit (Alld) 104;

(3) Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme
Court Cases 303;

(4) Narinder Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab and other (2014) 6
Supreme court cases 466 and

(5) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5
Supreme court cases 688.

6. In compliance of the order dated
31.08.2022, passed by a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, Mr. Amit Kumar Yadav
(applicant no.1) and Smt. Mona Yadav
(opposite party no.2) are present today
before this Court, who are identified by Sri
Gyan Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2.

7. On a query being made by the
Court, Mr. Amit Kumar Yadav, applicant
no.1 and Smt. Mona Yadav, opposite party
no.2 have jointly stated that they are living
peacefully together as husband and wife
and giving this statement of their own free
will and without any pressure.

8. Considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties. On the point
of compromise between the parties in
criminal cases following case law will be
relevant:

(i) B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State of
Haryana & Anr. decided on 13 March,
2003 in Appeal (crl.) No.383 of 2003.

(ii) Gian Singh vs.State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme
Court Cases 303

(iii) Narinder Singh and others
Vs.State of Punjab and other (2014) 6
Supreme court cases 466
11 All. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
395

(iv) State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5
Supreme court cases 688.

9. In the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra)
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:

"There is no doubt that the object
of introducing Chapter XX-A containing
Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was
to prevent the torture to a woman by her
husband or by relatives of her husband.
Section 498A was added with a view to
punishing a husband and his relatives who
harass or torture the wife to coerce her or
her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of
dowry. The hyper-technical view would be
counter productive and would act against
interests of women and against the object
for which this provision was added. There
is every likelihood that non-exercise of
inherent power to quash the proceedings to
meet the ends of justice would prevent
women from settling earlier. That is not the
object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal
Code.

In view of the above discussion,
we hold that the High Court in exercise of
its inherent powers can quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint and
Section 320 of the Code does not limit or
affect the powers under Section 482 of the
Code."

10. In the case of Gian Singh (Supra)
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para
No.61 and 62 as follows:

"61. The position that emerges
from
the
above
discussion
can
be
summarized thus: the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or
FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from
the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i)
to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly,
any
compromise between thee a victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis
for
quashing
criminal
proceedings
involving such offences. But the criminal
cases
having
overwhelmingly
and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or such like transactions
or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute.
In this category of cases, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceedings if in its
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view, because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put
the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in the affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding.

62. In view of the above, it cannot
be said that B.S. Joshi ,Nikhil Merchants
and Manoj Sharma were not correctly
decided.
We
answer
the
reference
accordingly. Let these matters be now listed
before the Bench(es) Concerned."

In the Case of Narinder Singh
(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows in para No.29:

29. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High
Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the
parties and exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or
refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under
Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in
the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court
has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are
not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have
reached the settlement and on that basis
petition
for
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in a
such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court. While exercising the
power the High Court is to form an opinion
on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society. Similarly, for the offences
alleged to have been committed under
special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim
and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly
those
arising
out
of
commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes should be
quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers,
the High Court is to examine as to whether
the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of criminal cases
11 All. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
397
would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307
IPC would fall in the category of heinous
and serious offences and therefore are to be
generally treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not
rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or
the charge is framed under this provision. It
would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it
or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to
proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.
For this purpose, it would be open to the
High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delicate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report
in respect of injuries suffered by the victim
can generally be the guiding factor. On the
basis of this prima facie analysis, the High
Court can examine as to whether there is a
strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to
accept the Settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter
case it would be permissible for the High
Court to accept the plea compounding the
offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court
can also be swayed by the fact that the
settlement between the parties is going to
result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to
exercise its power under Section 482 of the
Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after
the alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High
Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement
to
quash
the
criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of
the
reason
that
at
this
stage
the
investigation is still on and even the
charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise,
those cases where the charge is framed but
the evidence is yet to start or the evidence
is still at infancy stage, the High Court can
show benevolence in exercising its powers
favourably,
but
after
prima
facie
assessment of the circumstances/material
mentioned above. On the other hand, where
the prosecution evidence is almost complete
or after the conclusion of the evidence the
matter is at the stage of argument, normally
the High Court should refrain from
exercising its power under Section 482 of
the Code, as in such cases the trial court
would be in a position to decide the case
finally on merits and to come to a
conclusion as to whether the offence under
Section 307 IPC is committed or not a
Similarly, in those cases where the
conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate
stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not
be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already
been convicted by the trial court. Here
charge is proved under Section 307 IPC
and conviction is already recorded of a
heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty
of such a crime."

In the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held
as follows in para No. 15.1 to 15.4:

"15.1 That the power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal
proceedings
for
the
non-
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved
the
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not
to be exercised for the offences under the
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim
and the offender;

15.4 Offences under Section 307
IPC and the Arms Act etc. rwould fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the
individual
alone,
and
therefore,
the
criminal proceedings for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc.
which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves.
However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention
of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge
is framed under this provision. It would be
open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC
is there for the sake of it or the prosecution
has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by
the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts
of the body, nature of weapons used etc.
However, such an exercise by the High
Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and
the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate
conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of
the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole
and
in
the
circumstances
stated
hereinabove"

11. Learned Counsel for both the
parties are present before this Court and
submitted that the charge sheet including
the proceedings of the case be quashed on
the basis of compromise entered into the
parties.

12. Learned A.G.A. has no objection
as parties to the dispute relating to
matrimonial mater have entered into
compromise.

13. Considering the facts of the
present case as well as the principle of law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as
mentioned above, matrimonial dispute
between the husband and wife should be a
quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire dispute amongst themself
through compromise. There is another
aspect of the case that F.I.R. has been
lodged under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and
3/4 D.P. Act, which will come under
category specified in para No.29.4 laid
down
by
Hon'ble Apex Court
in
11 All. Dr. Parvez Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
Narinder Singh (supra) and in category
specified in para No.15.1 laid down by
Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (supra)
regarding which proceedings relating to
matrimonial dispute can be quashed in
exercise of power under Section-482
Cr.P.C.

14. As parties have reached/arrived at
compromise/settlement, and the same has
also been verified by their being appeared in
person in the Court so the conviction of
opposite party is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by
not quashing the criminal cases.

15. In view of the discussions made
above, it would be unnecessary to drag these
proceeding, as continuation of the criminal
proceeding
despite
settlement
and
compromise would amount to abuse of
process of law accordingly, the instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed on the basis of compromise dated
08.07.2022.

16. The proceeding of charge sheet
No.484 of 2020 dated 29.09.2020 as well as
summoning and cognizance order dated
30.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Allahabad filed
in Criminal Case No.322 of 2011 (State of
U.P. Vs. Amit Kumar and others) arising out
of Case Crime No.828 of 2019, under
Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC and 3/4 of
D.P. Act,
Police
Station-Dhoomanganj,
District-Prayagraj
including
the
entire
proceedings of the case are hereby quashed.

Criminal
Misc.
Correction
Application No.02 of 2022:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The judgment and order dated
19.09.2022
will
stand
corrected
as
follows:-

3. In the 6th line of second paragraph
and 5th line of 16th paragraph of the order
dated 19.09.2022 in place of '2011' shall be
read as "2021".

4.

Accordingly,
the
correction
application is allowed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 399
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 29079 of 2022

Dr. Parvez Alam ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sikandar B. Kochar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 420 & 409 - The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent power -all powers necessary,
which may also be incidental or implied,
are available to the Magistrate to ensure a
proper investigation in the matter in the
sense of a fair and just investigation by
the police, which power includes ordering
of further investigation after submission
of police report under Section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C.(Para -6 )