JUDGMENT : K. Natarajan, J. This writ appeal is filed by the appellant / writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 3194/2012 dated 18.06.2012 whereby, the writ petition was dismissed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 6. 3. The case of the appellant / writ petitioner before the Single Judge was that the appellant was staying in Saudi Arabia. She had sent some signed papers through the 2 nd respondent, to India, in order to hand over the same to her father in law, for the purpose of renewal of a loan obtained by her. Subsequently, the appellant came to know from the 2 nd respondent that he had lost those documents. Thereafter, the appellant went to the bank for enquiring about the re-payment of loan. At that time, she was informed that the 1 st respondent had already repaid the loan based upon the power of attorney said to be executed by the appellant in favor of the 1 st respondent. Based upon the power of attorney, the 1 st respondent got the necessary documents released, by paying the loan and later he executed a sale deed in favor of the 2 nd respondent. It is alleged by the appellant that respondents 1 and 2 colluded and fabricated documents in the appellant’s name and cheated the appellant by executing a sale deed by the 1 st respondent in favor of the 2 nd respondent. Therefore, she approached the Mannarkad Police Station by filing the First Information. Since the police did not take any action on complaint, then the appellant approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad by filing a private complaint for taking cognizance of offence by the Magistrate under Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as ‘Cr.P.C’ for short). After receipt of the complaint, the learned JFCM Mannarkkad referred the complaint to the police for investigation by acting under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police then investigated the matter and filed a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C (B final report), stating that the dispute is of civil nature. After receipt of the complaint, the learned JFCM Mannarkkad referred the complaint to the police for investigation by acting under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police then investigated the matter and filed a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C (B final report), stating that the dispute is of civil nature. Subsequent to the filing of the B final report, the learned JFCM issued notice to the complainant/ present appellant. At this stage, the complainant/appellant rushed to the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for referring the investigation to higher police authorities like Crime Branch or any other investigation agency. 4. After hearing the arguments, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that there is an adequate and efficacious remedy available to the very complainant/appellant before the same learned Magistrate by filing a Protest Complaint. The learned Single Judge also noted that a civil dispute was already pending before the Civil Court and hence it appeared that the dispute was of civil nature. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contented that as per the report received from the Indian Embassy of Saudi Arabia; the alleged power of attorney does not hold the seal of the embassy. Therefore, it clearly revealed that the document was created by the respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of cheating. There is a clear case of offence committed by the accused for cheating the complainant/appellant and to misappropriate the property of the appellant. Therefore the police ought to have filed the charge sheet, as there is a prima facie case made out against them, but they filed a B final report instead. Therefore, the matter requires further investigation by higher police authorities like Crime Branch or any other investigating authority. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that after filing the B report, the complaint itself is no longer in existence. Therefore, the matter requires further investigation by higher police authorities like Crime Branch or any other investigating authority. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that after filing the B report, the complaint itself is no longer in existence. However the civil suit filed by the appellant in O.S No. 302/2011 is still pending before the Sub Court, Ottappalam, Palakkad district and the dispute is civil in nature therefore that should be decided by the civil court in accordance with law. Therefore, filing the criminal complaint or referring the matter for further investigation to higher police officers does not arise. Hence, the counsel prayed for dismissing the writ appeal. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. Mary Beena Joseph also seriously objected the writ appeal, contenting that once the complaint is registered by the police and if they have filed B final report, the recourse or remedy available to the complainant was to file a Protest Petition against the B final report or seeking the very Magistrate to refer for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate is having the power to direct the police to further investigation. Such being the case, filing the writ petition before the High Court referring for further investigation to any higher authorities of police does not arise. Hence the learned senior Government Pleader prayed for dismissing the writ appeal. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the records, it is unfortunate that the appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India for exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction of High Court for the purpose of further investigation of the complaint which was filed by the appellant before the Magistrate, which is nothing but a private complaint under Section 200 r/w 190 of the Cr.P.C. In spite of this, the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that the petitioner is having a remedy to approach the same Magistrate by filing a Protest Petition and investigating the matter or seeking relief of further investigation before the Magistrate. The appellant had chosen to file the writ appeal before this Court and it was kept pending for 14 years without arguments. The appellant had chosen to file the writ appeal before this Court and it was kept pending for 14 years without arguments. However, the appellant, being the complainant when chose to file a First Information Report before the police under Section 154 of Cr.P.C, but the police did not take any action and responded to have not received the complaint or information for registering an FIR. Therefore, the appellant rightly chosen to file a private complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate rightly referred the complaint to the Mannarkkad police for investigation by invoking the provisions of 156(3) of Cr.P.C, whereby the police had investigated the matter and filed B Final Report. But the police had not filed the charge sheet against the respondents 1 and 2. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate rightly issued the notice to the defacto complainant to say about the B Final Report. At this juncture, it is the duty of the appellant being a defacto complainant, ought to have appeared before the learned Magistrate and file a Protest Petition before the Magistrate by narrating the complaint and praying for taking cognizance into the matter. In such an occasion, the learned Magistrate can receive the Protest Petition and asked the defacto complainant to enter the witness box and that he can record the statement of the defacto complainant/ present appellant and also examine the witnesses, who were referred in the private complaint filed by the appellant, apart from three documents produced. Those documents should be verified by the learned Magistrate by recording the statement of the witnesses. If the learned Magistrate finds a cognizable offence he can take the cognizance and issue the process under Section 204 of Cr. P.C or else he can dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. This is the actual procedure to be adopted in criminal courts when the police file a B Final Report. This was not done by the appellant, inspite of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court, who directed the appellant to file a protest petition before the learned Magistrate. 9. That apart, even if the appellant is not satisfied in the investigation, she can approach the very same Magistrate for further investigation which is permissible and the Magistrate has power to direct the police for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr. 9. That apart, even if the appellant is not satisfied in the investigation, she can approach the very same Magistrate for further investigation which is permissible and the Magistrate has power to direct the police for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr. P.C. But the appellant has not chosen to appear before the Magistrate to seek further investigation, to give a statement before the Magistrate, or to take cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. 9. However, the appellant has liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate for filing protest petition. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2022 SC 5344 , it is held at paragraph 12.2 as under : "12.2. It is, however, beyond any cavil that 'further investigation' and 'reinvestigation' stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation a superior court in exercise of its constitutional power, namely, under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct a 'State' to get an offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior court would ordinarily issue such a direction. Pasayat, J. in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar opined as under: 11. (2008) 5 SCC 413 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 631. '7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub- section (8), but fresh investigation not or reinvestigation.' A distinction, therefore, exists between a reinvestigation and further investigation." 10. In the above said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that even after the police have filed the charge sheet, the Magistrate has power to direct the police for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. Such being the case, approaching the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for direction to refer a further investigation to higher police authorities does not arise. 11. In a similar case, the Karnataka High Court in Crl. P. No. 536/2017, Dr. Ravikumar vs. Mrs. 11. In a similar case, the Karnataka High Court in Crl. P. No. 536/2017, Dr. Ravikumar vs. Mrs. K.M.C Vasantha and another considered the above circumstances for filing B Final report and how to take cognizance which is referred as under: i) The court after going through the contents of the investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that the investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under section 156(3) of Cr.p.c, but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. This my view is supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1968 S.C. 117 between Abhinandan Jha and Dinesh Mishra (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court reported in (1980) SCC 91 between Kamalapati Trivedi and State of West Bengal (second head note.) ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the 'B' Summary Report makes out a cognizable case against the accused and the same is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue process, then the court has to record its opinion under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got power to take cognizance on the contents of 'B' Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process. iii) If the court is of the opinion that the 'B' Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of 'B' report, the court has to reject the 'B' Summary Report. iv) After rejection of the 'B' Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter. iv) After rejection of the 'B' Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter. provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Sec.200 Cr.P.C. v) If the court is of the opinion that the materials collected by the police in the report submitted under section 173 of Cr.p.c. are not so sufficient, however, there are sufficient materials which disclose that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused, the court can still take cognizance of the offence/s under section 190 read with 200 Cr.p.c. on the basis of the original complaint or the protest petition as the case may be. After taking cognizance and recording sworn statement of the complainant and statements of witnesses if any and also looking into the complainant/Protest Petition and contents therein, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that, to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations further inquiry is required and he thinks fit to post pone the issue of process he can still direct the investigation under section 202 of Cr.p.c., to be made by a Police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit, to investigate and submit a report, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the above eventuality, care should be taken that, the case shall not be referred to the Police under section 156(3) of Cr.p.c, once the magistrate takes cognizance and starts inquiring into the matter himself. vi) After taking such report under section 202 of Cr.P.C., and looking to the entire materials on record, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there are no grounds to proceed against the accused, then the Magistrate is bound to dismiss the complaint or the Protest Petition u/s.203 of Cr.P.C. as the case may be. vi) After taking such report under section 202 of Cr.P.C., and looking to the entire materials on record, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there are no grounds to proceed against the accused, then the Magistrate is bound to dismiss the complaint or the Protest Petition u/s.203 of Cr.P.C. as the case may be. vii) If in the opinion of the Magistrate there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, on examination of the allegations made in the Protest Petition or in the complaint, as the case may be and also after perusal of the sworn statement, then he has to record his opinion judiciously, and issue summons to the accused by exercising power u/s.204 of Cr.P.C.. 12. Therefore we are of the view whether a cognizable crime is committed by the respondent or not cannot be decided by this Court since the learned Magistrate has the power under provisions of Cr.P.C to record the statement and take the cognizance or else he can refer the complaint to the police for further investigation. Such being the case, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not arise. That apart a civil case is already pending before the Sub Court, Ottappalam where the matter has to be decided. Such being the case, we are of the view that this writ appeal is devoid on merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this writ appeal is dismissed.