JUDGMENT
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. I have perused the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. It appears that the petitioner Smt. Jaspal Kaur filed a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against Malkiat Singh and others alleging the commission of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471-A of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was sent to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by Jaspal Kaur the Police registered a criminal case and started investigation. After investigation the Police submitted a final report. According to the petitioner on submission of the final report for the first time the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed further investigation in exercise of powers confirmed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Police in place of conducting any further investigation submitted the same final report in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. A protest petition was filed by the complainant Smt. Jaspal Kaur. Final orders were passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the final report on 28th July, 1995. On that day the counsel appointed by Smt. Jaspal Kaur was present in the Court. He submitted before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that since the signatures (hand-writing) of the accused persons was not available the final report may be accepted. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that he perused the final report and the case diary and came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons he, therefore, accepted the final report.
4. The petitioner Smt. Jaspal Kaur filed a revision petition against the order dated 28th July, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The revision petition was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Sri Ganganagar and the same was decided on 1lth March, 1997. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after healing the parties came to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not suffer from any infirmity he, therefore, dismissed the revision petition.
5. So far as the order dated 28th July, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is concerned, it does not appear to suffer from any illegal infirmity or impropriety. After conducting investigation the Police is required to submit a report in writing before the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and on the basis of that report the Magistrate may take congnizance of offence and if he finds sufficient grounds to proceed against any accused persons, order the issue of process against the accused persons. The opinion formed by the Police cannot be interfered by the Magistrate and, therefore, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to submit the charge-sheet in place of final report. The Magistrate is, however, not bound to accept the opinion formed by the Police as correct. He has to independently arrive at a conclusion whether the facts stated in the report constitute any offence and if so whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against any accused persons. So far as investigation by the Police is concerned it is true that a Magistrate can under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code direct the Police to conduct the investigation or further investigation. Bui i am afraid, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to supervise the investigation and give directions from, time to time as to how the investigation is to be conducted. In view of above position of law on 28th July, 1995 when the final report was considered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, all that he was competent to consider was whether the facts mentioned in the final report constitute one or more offence and if so whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed against one or more persons named by the complainant as accused. A perusal of the order dated 28th July, 1995 shows that the learned Magistrate considered the final report and the case diary and applied his mind and came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against any person. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate or the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge suffers from any illegal infirmity.
6. For above reasons this petition has no force it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Subject to law of limitation, the petitioner if so advised may file a complaint in the Court competent to take cognizance on the complaint.