JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 26-7-94, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pilibanga, by which the learned Magistrate did not accept the Final Report and directed the investigating agency to re-investigate into the matter. While directing the investigating agency to re- investigate the matter, the learned Magistrate gave certain directions to the investigating agency to proceed in a particular manner. 2. The order, passed by the learned Magistrate, has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the learned Magistrate should have accepted the Final Report submitted by the investigating agency as no case for further investigation has been made out and while directing the investigating agency to further investigate the matter, the learned Magistrate was not competent to direct the investigating agency to proceed in a particular manner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over: Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 and Pratap Ram and others v. The State of Rajasthan and others, 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 176 . The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that the learned Magistrate, on the submission of the Final Report by the investigating agency, can look into the Final Report and he may with the result of the investigation and can accept the report, drop the proceedings and he may, also, show his disagreement with the Final Report and take cognizance. The third option left with the learned Magistrate is that if he is of the opinion that the matter requires further investigation then he can direct the investigating agency to further investigate into the matter and while directing the investigating agency for further investigation, the learned Magistrate can direct it to proceed in a particular manner and the order, passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, does not require any interference. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code gives a mandate to the investigating agency, after completion of the investigation, to submit its report in the Form prescribed by the State Government, giving his opinion and the result of the investigation along with all the documents or the extract thereof, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, other than those already sent to the Magistrate during the investigation and the statements recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. of all the persons to whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code. authorises the investigating agency to further investigate the matter in respect of the offences after the report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code. has been forwarded to the Magistrate. After the submission of the report by the investigating agency, it is open to the Magistrate: whether to accept or not to accept the Final Report. If he agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency then he can accept the Final Report and drop the proceedings. But if he does not agree with the conclusions arrived at by the investigating agency then he can directly take cognizance and issue process but if he finds that the matter requires further investigation then he can direct the investigating agency to further investigate the matter. The powers vestes in the learned Magistrate to agree or not to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency and to accept and not to accept the Final Report. In the present case, the learned Magistrate was justified in not accepting the Final Report and directing the investigating agency to further investigate into the matter. The order, passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the investigating agency to further investigate the matter, therefore, does not require any interference. 5. Now, so far as the question: whether the investigating agency can be directed to investigate the matter in a particular manner and to submit the challan, is concerned, that cannot be done by the learned Magistrate. The investigation is the field which is exclusively left for the investigating agency and, therefore, the investigating agency cannot be directed to submit the challan, but, however, the investigating agency can be directed to further investigate the matter on certain points. The investigation is the field which is exclusively left for the investigating agency and, therefore, the investigating agency cannot be directed to submit the challan, but, however, the investigating agency can be directed to further investigate the matter on certain points. The learned Magistrate, therefore, while directing the Investigating agency, should not have directed it to investigate the matter in a particular manner and the learned Magistrate should have directed the investigating agency to further investigate into the matter so that the truth may be known and the full facts may come on the record. 6. In the result, the direction given by the learned Magistrate directing the investigating agency to further investigate the matter does not require any interference, but, however, the opinion express by the learned Magistrate will not come in the way of the investigating agency to further investigate into the matter. 7. With these observations, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******