JUDGMENT 1. - Mangilal has moved this application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 2.2.74 passed by the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur and quashing all further proceedings. 2. The facts & circumstances leading to the present application may be briefly stated as under : Balwant Singh, No. 1 applicant No. 2 lodged a First Information Report at the police station Bhupalpura on 18-8-72 and on his report, case under section 381 and 408 Indian Penal Code was registered by the police. After investigation, the police submitted a final report which was accepted by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 4-7-73. The complainant Balwant Singh Mehta, Secretary, Maharana Partap Samarak Samiti submitted a protest portion before the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1 Udaipur on 7-1-74 and on 2-2-74, The learned Magistrate cancelled his order dated 4-7-73 of acceptance of final report and directed the investigating officer to make further investigation, thereafter, to submit the report. The present applicant then moved an application for review of the order dated 2-2-74 before the successive Magistrate who by his order dated 11.1.75 rejected the application and it was stated by him that the order dated 2-2-74 is in order and call for no interference acid that investigation record was directed to be sent immediately for further investigation on the lines mentioned by his predecessor and then submit the report. The present applicant then preferred a revision petition against both the orders dated 2.2.74 and 11-1-75 and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Udaipur, by his order dated 22-4-78. The learned Additional Sessions judge rejected the revision petition in respect of the order dated 2-2-74 on the ground that it is barred by limitation and did not agree that the Court should suo motu take into consideration, the illegality and impropriety of the order dated 2.2.74. Though simultaneously, the learned Additional Sessions judge also considered the legality and propriety and observed that the order dated 4-7-73 whereby the final report was accepted was only in the nature of an administrative order and it can be set aside by the Court and further observed that the Magistrate is within his jurisdiction in directing the police to further investigate into the matter, although it is beyond his jurisdiction to direct the police to submit the charge-sheet. Thus, in these circumstances, the present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2-2-74. 3. I have heard Shri Bhagwati Prasad, learned advocate for the applicant and Shri S. L. Mardia, Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order dated 4.7.73 is a judicial order or an administrative one. In this connection reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court Nirmal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others (1979 Cr. L J. 226) . It may be stated that two different views were expressed by the two learned judges of the Allahabad High Court Considering the difference of opinion expressed by the two judges in two decisions, the matter was referred to the Division Bench and the Division Bench held that a Magistrate while accepting a final report functions as a Court. In the case, it was observed in para eight as under:- "When a final report is submitted by the Investigating Officer, though the Magistrate cannot direct that a charge-sheet should be submitted as it is for the police to form a final opinion of the basis of investigations made by it, the Magistrate can either direct that further investigation be made under Section 156 (3) of the Code to take congnizance of the offence under section 190 (1) (b) of the Code or accept the final report in order to decide which of the three courses the Magistrate should take, he has to act judicially and use his judicial discretion and, therefore, act as a court." 5. The Division Bench has also taken support from the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case Abhinand Jha v. Dinesh Mshra AIR 1968 SC 117 : 1968 Cr. L.J. 97 . In Abhinand an Jha's case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the respective spheres of jurisdiction of the Magistrate and"the investigating agency. Their Lordships were called upon to decide the question as to whether the Magistrate is competent to direct the police to submit the charge sheet. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the divergence of opinion among the various High Courts and took into account the principles of the grounds on which opinions have been expressed by the High Courts in para 11 of the judgment. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the divergence of opinion among the various High Courts and took into account the principles of the grounds on which opinions have been expressed by the High Courts in para 11 of the judgment. Their Lordships observed that though a report submitted by the police may have to be dealt with judicially by a Magistrate and although the Magistrate may have some supervisory powers nevertheless, they are not inclined to agree with the further view that from these considerations alone, it can be said that when the police submits a report that no case has been made out for sending up an accused person for trial, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to file a charge-sheet. Their Lordships further observed that it is open to the Magistrate to take congnizance of an offence on the basis of the final report and proceed according to law. The observations in para 12 of the report thus go to support the view that the Magistrate has to act judicially while dealing with the final report submitted by the police. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, it can not be said that the order of acceptance of final report is an administrative order & in my humble opinion the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rightly taken the support of the above observation of the Supreme Court, and I am in respectful agreement with the vices taken by the Division Bench. When a final report is submitted, the Magistrate may either accept the same or may order for further investigation may take cognizance that report. Either of these courts are open to him but while scrutinising the final report and the investigation papers, the Magistrate has to act judicially and thereafter, adopt any of the above three courses. At the time of consideration of the final report is given to the Magistrate to direct further investigation but in case, he accepts tie final report, then a question may arise that whether he can review his own order and direct further investigation thereafter. At the time of consideration of the final report is given to the Magistrate to direct further investigation but in case, he accepts tie final report, then a question may arise that whether he can review his own order and direct further investigation thereafter. In case it is found and I have already so found that the order accepting the final report is a judicial order, then it my opinion, such an order cannot be recalled by the Magistrate and he cannot direct the police to make further investigation into the matter. Although it would be open to the police in exercise of its own petters to make further investigation it matter but so far as the Magistrate is concerned, after reviewing or recalling his own order, such a direction for further investigation carrot be made. In this connection, I may refer in the decision of the Supreme Court in Bindeshuuri Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2432 ) : 1918 Cr. L. J. 187 . In this case their Lordship of the Supreme Court have held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review or recall a judicial cider passed by him, in view of the fact that there is no prevision in the code of Criminal Procedure empowering the Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him. In Birdeshwari Prasad's case the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.PC & in this connection it was observed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate became furctus officio & had no power to review or recall that order on any ground what so ever and it was held that the order recalling the order dismissing the complaint was entirely without jurisdiction and it was further observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, does contain a provision for inherent powers namely, section 561A which however, confers these powers on the High Court alone unlike Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the subordinate courts have no inherent powers. 6. In the light of the forgoing discussion, I hold that the order dated 4-7-73 was a judicial order and the same could not be cancelled and as such the order dated 2-2-74 was without jurisdiction. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dated 2-2-74 is quashed and consequently, the order dated 11-1-75 and the order passed in revision are also set aside. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dated 2-2-74 is quashed and consequently, the order dated 11-1-75 and the order passed in revision are also set aside. It may be observed that it would be open to the police to make further investigation if it considers it desirable or expedient in the circumstances of the case.Application allowed. *******