Re-investigation after charge and discharge is impermissible on a complainant's application; trial relief lies through witness-based joinder.

After cognizance, framing of charge, and discharge of some accused, a Magistrate cannot direct re-investigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on a de facto complainant's application, because that would amount to an impermissible review of a concluded order under Section 362. Further investigation remains available at the instance of the investigating agency, and if material emerges during trial against discharged persons, the proper course is recourse to Section 319. The Magistrate's direction was therefore without jurisdiction, and the High Court's interference was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed against some accused while others are discharged, a Magistrate can direct re-investigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on an application by the de facto complainant.

Analysis: Once a charge-sheet is filed and the Magistrate has taken cognizance, framed charges against some accused and discharged others, the Magistrate cannot, in the absence of an application by the investigating agency, direct re-investigation or suo motu order further investigation. Such a direction would amount to reopening a concluded order, which is impermissible in view of the bar against review under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The proper course, if material emerges during trial against discharged persons, is to proceed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power under Section 173(8) remains available for further investigation at the instance of the investigating agency, but not as a unilateral direction on the complainant's application in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct re-investigation or further investigation on the de facto complainant's application after passing the order of charge and discharge; the High Court's interference was justified.

Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the High Court's order setting aside the Magistrate's direction for reinvestigation was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: After cognizance, framing of charge, and discharge of some accused, a Magistrate cannot, in the absence of an by the investigating agency, direct re-investigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as that would amount to an impermissible review of a final order; recourse, if warranted, lies in Section 319 during trial.

---