JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 7-5-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the State and affirmed the order dated 21-9-1992, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osian. 2. Complainant Babulal, on 5-4-92, lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station, Lohawat, alleging therein that he went to attend the marriage of Gepar Ram in village Umaid. When he was returning from village Umaid on 4-2-92 and in the way while he was taking his meals at an hotel situated in village Samraou, the accused, accompanied with two persons, came there. Accused Shiv Lal asked the complainant why he had come there and thereafter forcibly took him into his flour mill and detained him there for some time. Thereafter he called the complainant's in-law's family members Banshi Lal and others. Banshi Lal, Bhanwaz. Lal, Banshi Lal wife Smt. Samra and his son Ishwar Lal were called and the complainant was forced to write divorce deed to his wife. On his refusal to do so, Banshi Lal wife asked them that if he was not ready to write the divorce deed then he should be put to death. Thereafter, Shiv Lal and other persons gave beatings to him and forcibly got the divorce deed written from the complainant. Chima Ram, Deepa Ram and Jodha Ram got him rescued. On the basis of this information, a case under Sections 365, 342, 327 and 323 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Lohawat, and the police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused. On 15-9-92, the complainant filed an application in the trial Court for taking cognizance against the order accused persons, also, under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments on the application, by his order dated 21-9-92, directed the investigating agency to further enquire into the matter and if the case is made-out under the aforesaid Act against accused Smt. Samra, Banshi Lal, Bhanwar Lal, Ishwar Lal and Tikam Chand then the challan may be submitted against them also for the offences and the result of the investigation should be conveyed to the Court on 20-10-92. The learned Magistrate further directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phalodi, to take action against the Station House Officer, viz., Shri Bhim Singh, under Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as he, being a public servant, has wilfully neglected his duties required to be performed by him under the Act. Dissatisfied with the order dated 21-9-92, passed by the learned Magistrate, the State preferred a revision petition, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, by his judgment dated 7-5-93, who dismissed the revision petition filed by the State and maintained the order passed by the learned trial Court. It is against this order that petitioner Bhim Singh, the Station House Officer, has preferred the present miscellaneous petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no latches or negligence on the part of the petitioner in conducting the investigation and the order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in his absence. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate could have directed the investigating agency to conduct further investigation but has no power to directly ask a police officer to take action against the investigating officer and to register a case under Section 4 of the Act. The learned counsel for the complainant, as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency is required to forward the report to the Magistrate concerned and after the receipt of the report, the learned Magistrate had three options with him,i.e., (i) he can accept the report and take the cognizance, (ii) he may or may not accept the report and refuse to take cognizance; and (iii) he can direct the investigating agency to further investigate into the matter. While directing the investigating agency further to investigate the matter, the learned Magistrate was not justified in the present case to direct the investigating agency to proceed in a particular manner against the present petitioner. While directing the investigating agency further to investigate the matter, the learned Magistrate was not justified in the present case to direct the investigating agency to proceed in a particular manner against the present petitioner. The direction, given by the learned Magistrate for registering a case against the petitioner and to investigate the matter against him under Section 4 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was wholly uncalled-for and deserves to be quashed and set-aside; but so far as the other part of the order, directing the investigating agency to further investigate the matter, is concerned, requires no interference. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed and the part of the order, relating to the petitioner, in which a direction has been issued to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phalodi, to proceed against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed, but the investigating agency will be free to further investigate the matter.Petition allowed. *******