Judgment : The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.153 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Chidambaram. The respondent is the private complainant. In respect of an occurrence which took place on 26.4.1984 at about 10.00 A.M., on the main Road, Chidambaram, the respondent filed a complaint before the trial Magistrate on 7.6.1984. The Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 8.6.1984 and issued process under Sec.204, Crl.P.C., to the petitioners. However, it was brought to the notice of the trial Magistrate by the petitioners, that already the respondent had filed a complaint in respect of the same occurrence before the same Court on 23.5.1984 and the Magistrate had directed the concerned police to investigate the matter by forwarding the complaint under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C. In that background on 1.121984 the Magistrate stayed further proceedings in C.C.No.153 of 1984 and was awaiting the report of the police in the complaint forwarded to them for investigation. On 29.5.1985 the respondent filed a petition to vacate the stay; since the police had neither registered a crime on the complaint forwarded to them for investigation nor examined the complainant or any of his witnesses in pursuance of the order of the Court, the trial Magistrate on 17.7.1985 passed the impugned order vacating the order of stay made by him earlier, so that the trial Court be proceeded with in accordance with law. It is this order of the Magistrate dated 17.7.1985 that is challenged before me by the petitioners. 2. The only point canvassed by Mr.C.D.Sekkizhar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the complaint had been forwarded by the Magistrate for investigation to the police under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C., the Magistrate will have to call for a report from the police officer who was directed to investigate the case, and then only dispose of the second complaint on the same facts, in accordance with law. Mr.M.Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the complaint had been forwarded even on 23.5.1984, under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C., for investigation and report, since no action had been taken by the police who had exhibited a lethargic attitude, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order on 17.7.1985. 3. Mr.M.Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the complaint had been forwarded even on 23.5.1984, under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C., for investigation and report, since no action had been taken by the police who had exhibited a lethargic attitude, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order on 17.7.1985. 3. Both the counsel have brought to my notice the decision of Krishnaswamy Reddi, J. in Murugesan v. Kothandam, 1969 L.W. (Crl.) 268, wherein the learned Judge has observed that the cognizance of the second complaint and the issue of process to the accused would amount to abuse of process on the facts detailed in that case and that the Magistrate had to call for the report from the police officer who was directed to investigate the case, and then dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. In that case, the police sent a notice to the complainant informing him that there was no material to proceed further in the matter. It was only after receipt of such notice, the complainant in the said case preferred the second complaint on the same allegations found in the earlier complaint. On facts even such a notice had not been sent by police to the respondent (Complainant). 4. When the Magistrate initially thought it fit to exercise his power under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C., and had directed the police to submit a report under Sec.173, Crl.P.C., the Magistrate must insist upon the police officer to submit his report under Sec.173, Crl.P.C., before taking further action in the matter. If lethargic attitude is exhibited by the investigating agency, on the complaint forwarded by the Magistrate, the Magistrate is bound to take action through higher officials in the police hierarchy and see to it that the report is forwarded by the investigating agency to the Court under Sec.173, Crl.P.C., expeditiously. Once the report is obtained from the police the Magistrate has a discretion either to accept the report or, in the event of his differing from the report, to take appropriate further action. 5. Once the report is obtained from the police the Magistrate has a discretion either to accept the report or, in the event of his differing from the report, to take appropriate further action. 5. As stated earlier, when the Magistrate thought it fit at the first instance, when the first complaint was filed, that the matter should be investigated by the police officer under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C., there appears to be no justification for him to change his mind without calling for the report and looking into it to take cognizance of the second complaint on the same materials. I respectfully agree with the view taken by Krishnaswami Reddi, J., in Murugesan v. Kothandam, 1969 L.W. (Crl.) 268, and direct the Magistrate to call for a report under Sec.173, Crl.P.C., from the concerned police and on receipt of the report, dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. The Magistrate will be justified in prescribing a time limit for the police to complete the investigation and send a report in view of the offence having been committed as early as 1984. In view of the lethargy exhibited by police, the Magistrate, if he so deems fit, can address the head of the police department in the district to facilitate an expeditious report on the investigation being forwarded to the Court by the concerned police officer. The order of the trial Magistrate dated 17.7.1985 and made in Crl.M.P.No.726 of 1985 is set aside and the initial order of stay passed by him under Sec.210, Crl.P.C., on 1.12.1984 will continue to operate till the report of the investigating police is received within a prescribed time, facilitating further action deemed fit without any further delay. The revision is allowed with the above observations.