Athul Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2017
8. The apprehension of the learned counsel for respondent No.2/
original complainant that there is possibility of collusion between the
investigating officer and the accused may be correct. It is true that if at
all there is collusion between the investigating officer and the accused,
then investigation can be diluted, however, it depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each and every case. It is not open for the
complainant to approach the learned Magistrate and seek order of
Trupti Page 4 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 27/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 21:18:39 :::
923-wp-5552-2018.doc
further investigation under section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. The police can
investigate further after filing the report i.e., chargesheet in the Court. It
is not necessary for the investigating officer to seek permission of the
Court, but he is required to inform the Court that he is carrying out
further investigation. The complainant is not left without remedy. Other
remedy is available to him, however, not under section 173(8) of the
Cr.P.C. The first informant/original complainant cannot move before the
learned Magistrate under section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. This issue has
no more res integra as it is decided in the case of Amrutbhai
Shambhubhai Patel (supra) and subsequently in the case of Athul
Rao (supra).