The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to give notice to the informant before accepting the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973, and the limitations on the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973.

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 with a prayer to quash P.S. Case No. 32(12) 2013 registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 182/203 IPC pending before court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mairang and order dated 10th July 2015 passed by trial court in pursuance whereof charges have been framed against the petitioner and respondent No. 4.

2. Briefly stated, the case has its own peculiar features. Respondent No. 4 had lodged a report against one Shri Thiwanstar Mawlong alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Subsequent thereto statement of complainant (respondent No. 4) under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been recorded wherein she has stated that FIR filed against accused Shri Thiwanstar Mawlong is false and allegations contained therein are also false. FIR was prepared by Ms. Agnes Kharshiing (petitioner) without understanding the contents complainant wrongly signed the same. FIR may be treated as cancelled as she withdraws it against Shri Thiwanstar Mawlong. The allegations leveled by her against the accused are completely false.

3. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 submitted on completion of investigation, to Magistrate is to the effect that he could not find any proof to substantiate allegations FIR in fact is false in view of confessional statement of complainant. Learned Magistrate while considering said report, vide order dated 2nd December, 2013 has taken note of the fact, that complainant had falsely implicated the accused under Section 506 IPC. The said offence has been made cognizable and non bailable in the State of Meghalaya. Finally, while taking serious note of lodging false report learned Magistrate has released the accused from judicial custody at the same time directed investigating officer to lodge FIR against both complainant (respondent No. 4) and petitioner under Section 182/203 IPC.

4. Based on said direction case has been registered case as P.S. Case No. 32(12) 2013 under Section 182/203 IPC against petitioner and respondent No. 4.

5. It is stated by the learned counsel of the parties that investigation in said case has been completed charge sheet has been presented thereafter Magistrate has framed charges so both petitioner and respondent No. 4 have been put to trial.

6. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that once investigating officer on completion of investigation concluded that the case is not proved and submitted a final report, learned Magistrate was required to put complainant on notice so as to enable him to lodge protest against closure. Instead learned Magistrate at the first instant directed registration of case against petitioner and respondent No. 4 for commission of offence under Section 182/203 IPC.

7. It is the settle position and also requirement of law that once case is not proved final report submitted to Magistrate is not to be accepted until complainant is put on notice to lodge protest. In this behalf learned counsel for petitioner has rightly placed reliance on judgment AIR 1985 SC 1285. Portion of Para-4 is advantageous to be quoted as to what has been held in the said judgment.

"4..... There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer in charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Informati