JUDGMENT

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

2. The complainant-appellant herein is before this Court questioning the correctness of the Order dated 24.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 14903 of 2008 in exercise of its power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of Criminal Procedure.") wherein the final report submitted pursuant to the Order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ponnamallee dated 7.11.2006 is under challenge, urging various legal contentions.

3. The facts in nut-shell giving rise to this appeal are that a complaint was filed by the Appellant herein against the Respondent and others. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was made and a report was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ponnamallee. Afterwards, notice was served upon the complainant in June, 2006. On 27.07.2006, a Protest Petition was filed by the Appellant/de-facto complainant to the report. On the basis of the same, the statement of the complainant, Appellant herein, was recorded. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate after recording reasons in his Order dated 7.11.2006 directed the Investigating Officer to examine the complainant with reference to the relevant documents in accordance with Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure and further directed to conduct proper investigation again by another Police Officer through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch and file a report.

4. It is stated at the Bar on behalf of the Appellant that the said order has been complied with by the investigating officer, who submitted the final report/chargesheet against the Respondents herein on 3.05.2007. The said report/chargesheet was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 herein before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, urging various contentions.

5. The learned Judge of the High Court, after adverting to the rival legal contentions and certain factual aspects, set aside the final report and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter either Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure on the assumption that while considering the Protest Petition, the report submitted earlier by the investigating officer, the complainant statement is recorded treating the same as a complainant proceeding. Therefore, the learned Judge of the High Court found fault with the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate directed to conduct proper investigation again by another police officer through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch to further investigate the matter is impermissible in law. The said view taken by the High Court is contrary to the view taken by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr., (1985) 2 SCC 537. In that case, this Court while examining the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, Section 154 and Section 173, made the following observations at para 4, which read as under:

"4. Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in-charge of a police station to the Magistrate under Sub-section (2)(i) of Section173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one