B. Kemal Pasha, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. A private complaint was initially filed as CMP No. 894/2008 by one Sunny John, Nirappumyalil veedu, Koothattukulam kara, Koothattukulam Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Trustee Vadakara St. Johns Jacobite Syrian Church, as the complainant. The same was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently, Crime No. 217/2008 of the Koothattukulam Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 142, 143, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, an investigation was conducted and a final report has been filed. The matter is pending as CC No. 209/2010 before the Court below.

2. Thereafter, CW 2 in the case filed Annexure-C CMP No. 945/2012 before the Court below seeking a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the matter by arraigning the petitioner herein along with another person as A35 and A34 respectively. In the cause title of Annexure-C, the details of the petitioner therein is shown as Kuriakose K.I., Kulakadumadathil veedu, Koothattukulam kara, Koothattukulam Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Trustee Vatakara St. Johns Jacobite Syrian Church. The Court below, vide Annexure-D order in CMP No. 945/2012 in CC No. 209/2010 directed the SHO, Koothattukulam to conduct further investigation in the case under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Annexure-D order is under challenge.

3. True that, the Court below can suo motu order a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The officer in charge of the Police Station, on obtaining further evidence, either oral or documentary, is also empowered to conduct a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. after informing the Court and seeking formal permission. The formal permission is being sought for, only for the purpose of enabling the concerned Court that the SHO or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be, is conducting a further investigation in the matter so that the matter pending before the Court shall stand stayed till a further final report is filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

4. At any stretch of imagination, a person who is a stranger or a witness cannot step into the shoes of the Court below or the SHO to demand a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Here, in this particular case, even though the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 have contended that the private complaint was originally filed by Sunny John in his capacity as trustee of the Church, for and on behalf of the Church, the cause title or the complaint as such does not reveal that it was a complaint filed by St. Johns Jacobite Church, Vadakara as complainant represented by Sunny John, whereas it evidently shows that the complaint was filed by one of the trustees of the said Church in his personal capacity.

5. Similarly, Annexure-C CMP 945/12 also shows that the said petition was filed by one Kuriakose K.I., who is CW 2 in the final report, in his personal capacity seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. by arraigning the petitioner as well as two other persons as A35 and A34 respectively. The said procedure adopted by the petitioner in Annexure-C is unheard of and the same cannot be endorsed as correct.

6. The petitioner in CMP No. 945/2012 has no locus standi to file an application seeking further investigation in the matter under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Of course, as a matter of fact, the de facto complainant, at the instance of whom the crime was registered, could have filed such an application, had there been a complaint for him that all the accused persons were not arraigned. At any stretch of imagination, CW 2 cannot step into the shoes of the de facto complainant and file such an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. This Court is not expressing an opinion with regard to the merits of the case. In case a further investigation is required in the matter and in case either the de facto complainant or the SHO of the concerned Police Station or the Court below have a case that the investigation was not proper and all the proper accused were not arraigned, it is open to them to have recourse to the provisions under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Matters being so, Annexure-D order is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl MC is allowed and Annexure-D order, as well as Annexure-E report filed by the police, stand quashed. It is made clear that the de facto complainant or the SHO of the concerned Police Station, or the Court below on its own motion, can have recourse to the provisions under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.