• Filling of Chargesheet after re investigation of closure report filed in the court

"A complainant deposited money into a cooperative society to purchase a joint land parcel owned by 130 members to get a plot. In 1982, the society purchased 55 Kanals of land with these 130 members. The plot was reserved for the complainant and complainant made payment as do the others; however, despite this reservation, the allotment of plot was never made by the society and allotment letter was never issued and there is no record in the society books that plot was allocated to the complainant. 
Fourteen years later, since the complainant didn't turned up to complete the allotment process, the plot was allocated to someone else in 1997, and the plot's mutation was transferred to another individual after registration with the Tehsildar.
In 2013, the complainant claimed that his plot was illegally occupied and sought possession. The society mentioned they had waited 12 years for the complainant to complete the allotment process, but as they couldn't locate him, they canceled the reservation for the plot through a resolution. While acknowledging the complainant's joint ownership of the 55 Kanals property in the revenue record, the society clarified that the plot was never officially allocated to him due to the incomplete allotment process. They offered reimbursement with interest in 2013, which the complainant declined.
In 2013, the complainant lodged complaints with the police, initially dismissed twice as a civil matter. However, in his third complaint, he provided verbal evidence of possessing the plot since 1982. In 2013, his plot was forcibly occupied by someone else, leading to an FIR in 2014. The police's closure report to the magistrate court highlighted the absence of an allotment letter, stating that the said plot was never allocated to the complainant. The report also acknowledged the society's inability to locate the complainant for 14 years.
Due to a protest petition, the case was sent back to the police for further investigation, which remained inconclusive for four months. Subsequently, the complainant requested re-investigation, directed to a senior IPS officer after 15 months of initial investigation. The ADCP, after re-investigation, submitted a charge sheet to the court, citing that making payment and having joint ownership among 133 members of the 55 Kanals equates to the allotment of the said plot.
Now, the questions arise: Should the police conduct an entire re-investigation when ordered by the magistrate? Despite the same facts and evidence, the initial police inquiry deemed the matter civil. Subsequent investigations revealed no new facts but led to a charge sheet based on the same matter and facts, contradicting the previous investigation that suggested the matter is of a civil nature."