REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the summoning order issued by the learned Special Judge, New Delhi dated 21st July, 2008 as well as the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which is alleged to be “incomplete” and in contravention of the provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are that FIR bearing No.RC 2(A)/2005 ACU (V) dated 19th March, 2005 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act came to be registered at P.S. C.B.I./SPE/ACU(V), New Delhi. The aforesaid FIR was initially registered against one Shri Akhand Pratap Singh (Retd. IAS), the father of the petitioner herein, and was registered on the allegation that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income almost two years after his retirement. The period of commission of the offence was set out as 01.01.1978 to 31.05.1991 in the FIR and it was alleged that the acquisition of the disproportionate assets were to the tune of Rs.21,45,872/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Two only) during the said period. The investigating agency conducted investigation and after a period of three years, on 27th / 28th March, 2008, it submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court of the learned Special Judge, New Delhi. In the said report filed by the CBI on 27th / 28th March, 2008, it was submitted that “Further investigation on certain aspects is going on” and that “The report in respect of the same will be submitted in due course”.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of the said report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the learned Special Judge by his order dated 21st July, 2008 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 109, 120-B, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code and ordered issuance of summons to the accused persons, including the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the filing of the report dated 27th / 28th March, 2008 and the consequent taking of cognizance and issuance of summons by means of order dated July 21, 2008, the petitioner instituted the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned order and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which, according to the petitioner, is an “incomplete” report irrespective of the nomenclature sought to be given to it.

5. I have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Malhotra, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation and gone through the impugned order as well as the relevant provisions of law adverted to by the parties.

6. The principal contention of Mr. Luthra, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the filing of a temporary report during the course of an on-going investigation is an act not contemplated by the legislators as evidenced by the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and as such, the report dated 27th / 28th March, 2008 which is not a “police report” within the meaning of Section 173 Cr.P.C. ought to be rejected. Mr. Luthra vehemently contended that there was a vital difference between the terms “investigation”, “further investigation” and “re-investigation”. He urged that admittedly in the instant case, the investigation itself had not been completed on the date of the filing of the report, and that taking of cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused persons whilst the investigative process is still on-going is unknown to law and in violation of the basic jurisprudential tenents of criminal law. Thus, the cognizance taken in the instant case under Section 190(1)(b) is illegal and liable to be set aside, since the very foundation or basis of the said cognizance, being a police report, does not exist.

7. Mr. Luthra submitted that further investigation predicates the existe