The judgment establishes the importance of transparency and accountability in police investigations and outlines the procedures to be followed by the Magistrate in dealing with a negative final report.

Lazar, the petitioner came forward with this petition to transfer the investigation in Crime No.222 of 2013 from the second respondent, namely, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichy, Kanyakumari District, to some other good police officer.

2. Lazar's son David married one Shamila, whose brother is defacto complainant Sherlin. As usual between David and Shamila in the beginning there was closeness. The married life between them then was beautiful. But, it did not long last. Subsequently, the spouses have became dead enemies. It is also a fall out of the ego clash.

3. Under the circumstances, David wanted to give good bye to his wife once for all. So, he filed an I.D.O.P. before the District Judge, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil for dissolution of their marriage. She also agreed. It is a mutual consent. Strained relationship arose between both the families.

4. In this backdrop of the matter, certain occurrences took place. Sherlin, who is brother-in-law of David alleged that on 22.11.2013 while he was cycling he was beaten by henchmen set up by his sister's husband Dvaid. Karungal Police registered a case in Crime No.648 of 2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. In this case, investigation was completed and final report also has been filed. Petitioner Lazar has become an accused.

5. It is pertinent to note that on the same date of occurrence Lazar, father-in-law of Shamila lodged a complaint with the Manavalakurichy Police Station, alleging that he has been assaulted by the henchmen set up by Shamila's brother and others. Police registered a case in Crime No.222 of 2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. The present criminal original petition relates to this crime number.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police is one sided. They are helping the opposite side. In the complaint lodged by Sherlin Titus in Crime No.648 of 2013, police was very haste in completing the investigation. However, they did not do proper investigation in Crime No.222 of 2013. Under the circumstances, dissatisfied with this lukewarm attitude, petitioner wanted investigation by a good police officer.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that in Crime No.222 of 2013, investigation has been completed and that it was treated a 'Mistake of Fact' (M.F.) and the same will be duly submitted to the concerned Magistrate's Court.

8. The case diary produced and perused.

9. Now every where there is transparency. There cannot be investigation in secrecy. In order to maintain transparency police has to inform the informant the result of the case given by the informant.

10. In the circumstances, as directed, a copy of the negative final report treating the case as 'M.F'. has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Now, in this case stage of the investigation in Crime No.222 of 2013 is over.

11. So far we have seen the factual matrix. Now, will see the position of law.

12. A complaint of cognizable offence has been reported to a police officer. He has registered a case in Crime No.222 of 2013. (see Section 154 Cr.P.C.) After registration of the F.I.R, as a legal follow up, the investigation officer must investigate. (See Section 156, 157 Cr.P.C.) The word 'investigation' has been explained in Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. It means 'collection of evidence' by a police officer. After collecting the oral evidence (See Section 161 and 162 Cr.P.C.) and seizing of the documents and material objects, if any, medical, scientific and expert evidence, if any, the investigation officer has to arrive at a conclusion and he should put it in the form of a report. It is 'Final Report' under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Loosely called as 'charge sheet'. Such a final report may be 'positive', if the investigation reveals commission of certain offences. Some times, such report may be 'negative', when from the evidence collected no offence appears to have been committed. It is also called