Yes HC can do the above and quash it under 482 croc

Police has no powers to conduct the investigation when magistrate only ordered further investigation 

2) further investigations is continuation of earlier  investigation and cannot be reinvestigation 

3) HC can quash the charge sheet 

File petition for quashing in HC 

Rage the plea that police conducted reinvestigation and not further investigations 

1. Once the police report is submitted under section 178(2) of the code of criminal procedure, further investigation by police is allowed but fresh investigation or re-investigation is not allowed.

2. The Supreme Court in a case has said that there can't be reinvestigation of an offence by a different investigating agency without prior approval or permission of the Magistrate concerned.Therefore the reinvestigation by police on their own without a specific order by court in this case will not be maintainable.

3. There cannot be any dispute that even after the chargesheet is filed, it is the right of the investigating officer to further investigate in respect of offence even after a report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code forwarded to a Magistrate, the prior approval of the Magistrate is not required," a bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar said. "However, as per the settled position of law, so far as the reinvestigation is concerned, the prior permission/approval of the Magistrate is required," the bench added.

Hence if a quash petition is filed before high court for the same reasons, there are chances for quashing the charge sheet.

Your assumptions or imaginary thoughts will not establish that it was reinvestigation and not further investigation.

Hence the fact has to be ascertained before taking decision to challenge the same.

In respect of further investigation, in Vinay Tyagi
(supra) Supreme  Court has observed:
22. “Further investigation” is where the investigating
officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence
after the final report has been filed before the court
in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with
the executive. It is the continuation of previous
investigation and, therefore, is understood and
described as “further investigation”. The scope of
such investigation is restricted to the discovery of
further oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose
is to bring the true facts before the court even if they
are discovered at a subsequent stage to the primary
investigation. It is commonly described as
“supplementary report”. “Supplementary report”
would be the correct expression as the subsequent
investigation is meant and intended to supplement
the primary investigation conducted by the
empowered police officer. Another significant feature
of further investigation is that it does not have the
effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial
investigation conducted by the investigating agency.
This is a kind of continuation of the previous
investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence

and in continuation of the same offence and chain of
events relating to the same occurrence incidental
thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in
complete contradistinction to a “reinvestigation”,
“fresh” or “de novo” investigation.

2) In Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar
, it was observed by SC that upon
submission of a report in terms of Section 173 (2) (i) the
concerned Magistrate has three courses of action available before
him:
(i) Accept the report and proceed further
(ii) Disagree with the report and drop the proceedings.
(iii) Direct further investigation under Section 156 (3) which is
the power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence,
and require them to make a further report. 

Without Magistrate order, there cannot be re investigation.

 PETITIONER:


STATE OF RAJASTHAN

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ARUNA DEVI AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/11/1994

BENCH:

HANSARIA B.L. (J)

BENCH:

HANSARIA B.L. (J)

KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:

 1995 SCC (1)	 1	 JT 1994 (7)	522

 1994 SCALE (4)823

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.L. HANSARIA, J.- Special leave granted.

2.A complaint was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilara, against the respondents under various sections of the Penal Code. The gravamen of the allegation was that the respondents had, in pursuance of a conspiracy, transferred some land on the strength of a special power of attorney bearing forged signature. The Magistrate, after perusal of the complaint, directed an investigation to be made as contemplated by Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code). A case + From the Judgment and Order dated [deleted] of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Crl. Misc. P. No. 233 of 1988 was registered thereafter by police and a final report was submitted on 18-7-1981 stating that complaint was false. The report came to be accepted by the Magistrate on [deleted]. It, however, so happened that the Superintendent of Police had independently ordered further investigation on 24-9-1981 and a challan came to be filed by police against the respondents, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 467 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance on 25-6-1984. A challenge was made to this act of the Magistrate before Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who dismissed the revision. On further approach to the High Court, the revision was allowed and the order of cognizance was set aside. The State has come in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

3. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that it took the view that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance after the final report submitted by police had been once accepted. Shri Gupta, appearing for the appellant, contends that this view is erroneous in law inasmuch as Section 173(8) of the Code permits further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been submitted. Sub- section (8) also visualises forwarding of another report to the Magistrate. Further investigation had thus legal sanction and if after such further investigation a report is submitted that an offence was committed, it would be open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the same on his being satisfied in this regard.

4. Shri Francis for the respondents, however, contends that the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance pursuant to filing of further report amounted to entertaining second complaint which is not permissible in law. To substantiate the legal submission, we have been first referred to Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saro Ranjan Sarkar1, in which a three-Judge Bench of this Court dealt with this aspect. A perusal of the judgment of the majority shows that it took the view that dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code is no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts; but the same could be done only in exceptional circumstances some of which have been illustrated in the judgment. Further observation in this regard is that a fresh complaint can be entertained, inter alia, when fresh evidence comes forward. In the present case, this is precisely what had happened, as on further investigation being made, fresh materials came to light which led to the filing of further report stating that a case had been made out.

Contact for same

Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to magistrate to order further investigation. Although it is not compulsory to take the prior permission for further investigation after filing the charge sheet. It is a statutory right of the police.

If the challan is mentioned as further investigation then how can you say that it was re-investigation only.

The Commissioner might not have noticed the error in his order hence has ordered for re-investigation, however since the fresh charge sheet was submitted as further investigation, then it is construed that it is further investigation only.

If the new IO has repeated the contents of the previous charge sheet closure report but now has held the accused liable for the offences committed ,then it is for the counsel of the accused to challenge the veracity of the new charge sheet during trial proceedings. .

in the case of Bharati Tamang Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 578, in case of deficient / unsatisfactory investigation, it is the duty of the Courts to ensure effective conduct of prosecution and the Courts have powers to direct re-investigation in exceptional circumstances in case it warrants due to deficient / unsatisfactory investigation.

You can go through this judgment IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2023 Anant Thanur Karmuse …Appellant(s) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J.

In another case the SC has held that 

Supreme Court: The bench of Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala*, JJ has held that there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. Holding that even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case, the Court stated that prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed.
CBI v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515, decided on [deleted]]...

Further investigation” is where the investigating
officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence
after the final report has been filed before the court

2) in the present case there is no further evidence found by police and have filed charge sheet after filing of closure report 

3) you should file petition for quashing of charge sheet in HC 

Yes it will be further investigation and quashing is possible in the basis of the same 

It is not re-investigation. The subsequent IO has not re investigated the case, whereas he perused the case papers and investigated further on the issues that were not covered hence it cannot be said as re-investigation.

Besides, the IO has submitted the further investigation report only.

The subsequent IO can go into the previous investigation matter to ascertain if there is any loophole in the previous report and can give a report accordingly.

When the matter has been referred for further investigation then the new IO has to to take care of all the incidents reported in the complaint including the report made  by his predecessor.

By sending back the complaint for further investigation by the concerned magistrate, no legal infirmity has been committed, the matter will be decided by the court concerned only after a full trial, it is again the discretion of the magistrate to take cognizance or not of the case after the charge sheet filed by the subsequent IO.

New IO can only carry out further investigations if new material facts or evidence has come to knowledge 

he cannot address those issues which earlier IO said do not constitute criminal matter 

IO cannot re investigate the case 

Further investigation additional investigation and not fresh investigation or reinvestigation 

2)IO has carried out reinvestigation 

3) In respect of further investigation, in Vinay Tyagi
(supra) Supreme  Court has observed:
22. “Further investigation” is where the investigating
officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence
after the final report has been filed before the court
in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with
the executive. It is the continuation of previous
investigation and, therefore, is understood and
described as “further investigation”. The scope of
such investigation is restricted to the discovery of
further oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose
is to bring the true facts before the court even if they
are discovered at a subsequent stage to the primary
investigation. It is commonly described as
“supplementary report”. “Supplementary report”
would be the correct expression as the subsequent
investigation is meant and intended to supplement
the primary investigation conducted by the
empowered police officer. Another significant feature
of further investigation is that it does not have the
effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial
investigation conducted by the investigating agency.
This is a kind of continuation of the previous
investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence

and in continuation of the same offence and chain of
events relating to the same occurrence incidental
thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in
complete contradistinction to a “reinvestigation”,
“fresh” or “de novo” investigation.

1. Even then it would a further investigation 

2. The is why the iO will go for further investigation because of the fact of the previous IO has not taken care of any facts mentioned in the complaint.

3. Re-investigation is a process of investigation denovo and CrPC is silent in relation to the process of re-investigation. Whereas Further investigation begins under section 173(8) of CrPC, when investigation is complete and final form is submitted under section 173(2) of CrPC

1. In the scenario you've described, it seems the police, instead of conducting further investigation as directed by the magistrate, went ahead with a complete reinvestigation. The legality of this action might vary based on the jurisdiction and the specific orders given by the magistrate. In general, if the magistrate's directive was for further investigation and not a complete reinvestigation, the police might have overstepped their bounds by conducting a fresh probe.

2. If the charge sheet filed during the reinvestigation didn't introduce any new evidence or facts but relied solely on information from the previous investigation, particularly from the cancellation report, it raises questions about the purpose and validity of the reinvestigation. If the intention was to only gather additional evidence or facts as per the magistrate's order, the absence of new information in the charge sheet might call into question the necessity of the reinvestigation.

3. Whether the High Court can quash the charge sheet due to it being a result of a reinvestigation instead of further investigation depends on the specifics of the case, the orders issued by the magistrate, and the legal provisions in the jurisdiction. If the police exceeded the scope of their mandate by conducting a complete reinvestigation instead of further investigation as instructed, the High Court might consider this as a violation of the magistrate's orders and could potentially quash the charge sheet.

In this situation, the claim that the police conducted a reinvestigation instead of further investigation can be supported by examining specific details and documentation related to the case. Analyze the contents of the challan thoroughly. Look for any explicit mention or indications that the evidence or facts presented are entirely derived from the previous investigations. Any reference to reports, findings, or evidence from the initial investigation without any new or supplementary information could strengthen the argument that a proper reinvestigation didn't occur. If there is an application submitted by the complainant for a fresh or reinvestigation, this document could be vital. If this application specifically outlines areas or aspects that needed to be reinvestigated and if the subsequent investigation fails to address these or simply reiterates previous findings, it can support the claim of inadequate reinvestigation. Look for any correspondence or communication between the Commissioner of Police, Investigating Officer, and the court regarding the directions given for further investigation. Any discrepancies between what was directed by the court and what was executed in terms of the investigation can be crucial evidence to showcase the deviation from the court's orders. Retrieve the magistrate's instructions or order directing further investigation. Compare these orders with the content of the challan. If the content of the challan does not align with the specific directives given by the magistrate, it could support the argument that a reinvestigation was carried out rather than the mandated further investigation.

If the reinvestigation doesn't yield any new evidence or facts but merely reiterates findings from the initial investigation, courts have sometimes considered this as insufficient grounds for filing a charge sheet. Courts have emphasized the need for substantial new evidence or facts to justify a fresh prosecution. When different investigating officers submit conflicting reports based on the same set of evidence, it might raise doubts about the objectivity or thoroughness of the investigation. Courts have, in some instances, quashed charge sheets due to inconsistent opinions without new substantial evidence. If the police conduct a reinvestigation explicitly against the court's direction of further investigation, courts might consider it a violation of the judicial order. In such cases, courts have intervened and quashed charge sheets or directed a proper adherence to the initial directives. Several cases have been dealt with on the basis of police overreach, improper reinvestigation, or non-compliance with court orders. Researching cases such as State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, State of Rajasthan v. Chhatu Ram, or State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao might provide insights into similar scenarios where courts have intervened due to improper reinvestigation or lack of new evidence. In your case, the fact that two investigating officers submitted different opinions based on the same set of evidence might be a crucial point to argue before the court.

You've raised a critical point regarding the terminology used in the challan - while it mentions "further investigation," the substance of the investigation might indeed resemble a reinvestigation based on the lack of new evidence and the repetition of facts from the previous closure report. The absence of new facts or evidence in the new charge sheet, along with the repetition of information previously deemed insufficient to hold the accused liable, can indeed raise questions about the nature of the investigation conducted. It's a substantial argument to challenge the veracity and legitimacy of the "further investigation" mentioned in the charge sheet. In essence, if the new investigating officer merely repeats the contents of the previous closure report but arrives at a different conclusion regarding the accused's liability without introducing any fresh evidence or facts, it can indeed be considered more of a reinvestigation rather than a genuine further investigation as directed by the court. The fact that the senior IPS officer's investigation was prompted by the complainant's request for fresh or reinvestigation adds weight to the argument that the intention behind the investigation was more aligned with a reinvestigation, especially considering the lack of new findings. These arguments could potentially form strong points for a petition seeking the quashing of the charge sheet at the High Court. Highlighting the discrepancy between the label of "further investigation" and the actual substance of the investigation, supported by the absence of new evidence and the circumstances surrounding the initiation of the investigation, could strengthen the case for quashment.

The situation you've described involves a nuanced intersection of roles and responsibilities between investigating officers, the magistrate, and the issues raised in the protest petition. When a case is sent back for further investigation, the new investigating officer typically has the authority to explore all aspects related to the case, including issues previously addressed by the former IO. The purpose of further investigation is to delve deeper into the matter, gather additional evidence if necessary, and address any concerns or gaps highlighted by the court or the complainant. The new investigating officer possesses the right and responsibility to re-examine the issues previously discussed by the former IO. The former IO's rejoinder addressing why certain points didn't constitute criminal acts doesn't prohibit the new IO from re-evaluating those aspects. The new IO has the authority to form their own opinion based on the evidence gathered during the further investigation. The magistrate's decision to send the case back for further investigation doesn't necessarily imply that the issues raised were immediately deemed criminal. It suggests that the magistrate found grounds for dissatisfaction in the previous investigation and sought additional information or clarification. This doesn't preclude the new investigating officer from re-examining those aspects and potentially uncovering new evidence or angles that might influence the case. In essence, while the issues were previously addressed by the former IO and were deemed insufficient for criminal proceedings, the concept of further investigation allows the new IO to revisit these points, gather additional evidence, and reassess their relevance to the case. This doesn't necessarily constitute a re-investigation in the strictest sense, as it aligns with the court's directive for further exploration rather than a complete overhaul of the prior investigation. However, if the new investigation merely repeats the same conclusions without introducing substantial new evidence or analysis, it might be perceived as reiterating the previous investigation rather than genuinely furthering the inquiry. The crux lies in whether the new investigation brings forth new perspectives, evidence, or considerations that weren't addressed adequately in the previous inquiry.

1. Reinvestigation vs. Further Investigation
Reinvestigation: This involves a fresh, comprehensive review of the entire case from the beginning. It may occur due to significant errors, omissions, or inadequacies in the previous investigation. It often implies starting anew or re-examining previously explored aspects to correct deficiencies.
Further Investigation: This refers to delving deeper into specific aspects highlighted by the court or parties involved. It doesn't necessarily imply starting over but entails exploring areas that might have been insufficiently addressed or require additional scrutiny.

Furthermore,

1. Investigating Previous Investigation Loopholes: Yes, the new IO scrutinizing the previous investigation for any gaps, errors, or loopholes could be considered a part of further investigation. If the purpose is to identify inadequacies or areas requiring further attention rather than starting the investigation afresh, it aligns more with a further investigation than a complete reinvestigation.

2. Handling Previous Incidents and Reports: The new IO addressing incidents reported in the complaint and handling the previous report made by the predecessor isn't inherently a reinvestigation. It falls more within the scope of a thorough further investigation, where the focus is on ensuring completeness and addressing any deficiencies in the prior investigation.

3. Defining Reinvesigation: Reinvesigation involves conducting a fresh, comprehensive examination of the entire case, often starting from scratch, to correct flaws, gather new evidence, or rectify inadequacies in the prior investigation. It typically implies a more fundamental revisit of the case rather than just addressing specific issues or gaps.

In summary, while the new IO may revisit aspects of the previous investigation or reports, the determination between further investigation and reinvestigation hinges on the nature and depth of this revisit. If it involves a comprehensive re-examination from the beginning, aiming to rectify major flaws or gather substantial new evidence, it leans towards reinvestigation. Conversely, a focus on specific areas, without an overhaul of the entire investigation, aligns more with further investigation. You ca reach out to us for further assistance

Yes it can be re investigation or further investigation depending of what investigation is done by IO as per facts of your  case