Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 14-8-2002 passed by Shri ashok Sharma, JMFC, Tikamgarh, in unregistered complaint filed by respondent against this petitioner, for offences punishable under Sections 406,409, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC, in addition to the aforesaid complaint itself along with this direction that the learned JMFC be restrained from taking any action in the matter. ( 2. ) ON 10-12-2001, the respondent filed the aforesaid complaint marked as Annexure P-9 against this petitioner in the Court of CJM, Tikamgarh, for offence punishable under Sections 406, 409,420,467 and 468 of the ipc. The learned CJM transferred the complaint to the Court of Shri Ashok sharma, JMFC, Panna, who on the same day, forwarded a copy of the aforesaid complaint to Police Station, Kotwali, Tikamgarh, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Cr. PC (hereinafter referred to as the "code"), for investigation and report. Photocopy of this order is marked as Annexure P-10. The learned JMFC received a report from Kotwali Tikamgarh. On consideration of the report of Police Station, Kotwali, Tikamgarh, dated 6-8-2002, the learned JMFC passed the following order (certified copy of which is on record), which is sought to be quashed :- ( 3. ) REFERRING to Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra and Roopchand lai and another Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in AIR 1968 SC 117 and R. Sarala Vs. T. S. Velu, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 459 and Prabhanshu kamal and others Vs. Awadhesh Singh Bhadoriya and another, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct police to file a police report (challan) under Section 173, Cr. PC. ( 4. ) IN R. Sarala Vs. T. S. Velu (supra) the opinion of public prosecutor was ordered to be taken on the point if challan has to be filed and in that position it is dictated by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that "the formation of the opinion, whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial, should be that of the Officer-in-Charge of the police Station and none else". In the present case, the Investigating Officer is not found directed to take opinion of any Officer for forming his opinion whether the charge-sheet (challan) is to be filed, therefore, the cited authority is not applicable in this case. ( 5. ) IN Prabhanshu Kamal Vs. A. S. Bhadoriya (supra), without going through the contents of the complaint, the learned Special Judge, directed that the complaint filed against public servant, be investigated by S. P. (Lokayukta), gwalior, which is not an authority to whom the complaint may be sent for investigation under the provisions of the Cr. PC and hence, this Court deprecated the aforesaid action. But in this case, the facts are different, because on receipt of unsatisfactory report the learned JMFC is found to have sent a copy of complaint to S. P. with intent to ensure that investigation is properly done, as contemplated in sub-section (1) of Section 156 of the Code, therefore, the above pronouncement also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. ( 6. ) IN Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of M. P. , reported in AIR 2001 SC 571 also, it is found dictated by Their Lordships of Supreme Court that before taking cognizance, the Magistrate may forward the complaint to police for registering the first information report and then to conduct the investigation. It is also further found explained by Their Lordships that even if a Magistrate does not direct for registration of first information report and forwards the complaint for investigation only, the police has to register the first information report, because after registering the first information report only, the police officer may take further steps contemplated in Chapter 12 of the Code. The relevant Para 10 of the aforesaid judgment, runs as under :- "10. The position is thus clear, any judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in -charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the Officer -in -charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter. " ( 7. ) THEN, in Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra (supra), the police had already sent a final report under Section 169 of the Code, therefore, it is explained by Honble the Supreme Court that there is no expressly or impliedly conferred power under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet, when they have sent a report under Section 169 of the code, stating that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. The functions of the Magistracy and the police are entirely different, and though, the Magistrate may or may not accept the report, and take suitable action, according to law, he can not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police, take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190 (1) (b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report. " ( 8. ) IN the present case also, when the learned Magistrate did not feel satisfied with the report dated 6-8-2002 sent by Kotwali Tikamgarh, in connection with his order dated 10-12-2001, wherein he forwarded respondents complaint to Police Station, Kotwali, Tikamgarh, under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code, and hence by impugned order dated 14-8-2002, he is found to have directed T. I. Kotwali, Tikamgarh, for further investigation with information to S. P. Tikamgarh to ensure that investigation is properly done. Thus, the learned JMFC is not found to have committed any illegality in passing impugned order. Then, still on receipt of this order dated 14-8-2002, the S. H. O. is not bound to file the police report (challan) under section 173 of the Code, if on investigation, he forms an opinion that no case is made out for sending up the accused for trial. ( 9. ) IN result, in the absence of any illegality in the impugned order dated 14-8-2002, passed by JMFC, Tikamgarh, the exercise of inherent powers, is not found to have been necessitated and hence, this petition does not merit, which is, accordingly disallowed and rejected. M. Cr. C. rejected.