JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent No. 2 Vishambhar Dayal Sharma wanted to contest the election of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Beejawar Naruka Distt. Alwar. He was not allowed to contest such election on the ground that his third child was born on 6.4.96. It is alleged that in their capacities as Gram Sevak and Secretary Gram Panchayat Beejawar Naruka petitioner No. 2 and 3 had reported that the third child was born to Vishambhar on 6.4.96, which was a wrong fact. Therefore, Vishambhar Dayal filed a petition under Section 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1944 in the court of District Judge. The learned District Judge vide his order dated 20.11.97 held that third child was born to Vishambhar Dayal on 15.10.95 and not on 6.4.96. On the basis of such finding of the learned District Judge, Aiwar Vishambhar Dayal appears to have lodged an FIR with Police Station Malakheda (Distt. Alwar), alleging therein that the petitioners had prepared false documents in respect to the birth of third child of Vishambhar Dayal respondent No. 2. A case for offence under Sections 420, 417, 467 and 120-B IPC was registered against the petitioners. After having conducted investigation into the aforesaid offences, the S.H.O. Malakheda submitted a final report in the matter. It appears that the learned Magistrate issued notice of the final report to the complainant Vishambhar Dayal to show cause as to why the final report be not accepted. Vishambhar Dayal filed a protest petition. After hearing the parties the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 16.7.98 directed the Police to re-investigate the case and submit a fresh report. 2. It was urged on behalf of the applicant that the impugned order was bad in law in as much as the learned Magistrate could not have directed the police to re-investigate the matter. It was submitted that directing the police to re- investigate the matter amounted to exercise a discretion not vested in the Magistrate. It was further submitted that vide the matter had been enquired by the District Judge in exercise of powers under Section 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1944, the said authority only was competent to file a complaint against the applicant which it did not do. 3. It is well settled that the functions of the police and the Courts do not overlap instead they are supplementary to each other. 3. It is well settled that the functions of the police and the Courts do not overlap instead they are supplementary to each other. Where the job of police of investigating the crime ends by submitting its report under section 173 Criminal Procedure Code which may be positive or negative, the functions of the Court begins. The Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of an offence on a report of the police which includes a negative report also. It is altogether a different matter that Magistrate may or may not think it proper to direct the police to place before it any other material which might have come to its notice or knowledge in the course of investigation of crima and which might not have been placed on the record submitted alongwith the police report. But courts are not vested with the power of controlling the investigation. 4. In the above sense of the matter the order of the learned Magistrate in directing the police to re-investigate the case, that too on the lines defined by him was not in accordance with settled principle of law on investigation and trials. The learned Magistrate could have had he found sufficient material to do so, taken cognizance of the offence which, in his opinion, was prima-facie, made out from the police report and the documents submitted therewith. That apart once the complainant had appeared before him, and objected to the acceptance of the final report as submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate was required to ask the complainant to adduce his evidence in support of his contentions and could have examined him under section 200 and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.RC. 5. In view of the above I hold that the impugned order amounts to abuse of the process of law and in order to secure justice to the petitioners it is necessary to quash the order. Consequently the order is set-aside and cancelled. It would be open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence against the petitioner which, in his opinion, is prima-facie, disclosed by the police report and the documents submitted therewith. In his discretion he may also require the complainant to examine himself under Section 200 and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.RC. and then to form his opinion on the basis of such evidence plus the police report and the documents submitted therewith. 6. In his discretion he may also require the complainant to examine himself under Section 200 and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.RC. and then to form his opinion on the basis of such evidence plus the police report and the documents submitted therewith. 6. The petition stands disposed-of with above observation.Petition allowed with direction to the trial court. *******