ORDER B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Shri Ch. Lokendra learned Counsel for the petitioners and Md. Jallaluddin, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 2. Both the criminal petitions are admitted for hearing. Considering the urgent nature of the matter and on being consented by the learned Counsel for the parties, both the criminal petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment at the admission stage itself. 3. Short facts of the case giving rise to the filing of these criminal petitions are set out below: An FIR was lodged by the Commandant, Home Guards (V/A), Manipur, Imphal to the Porompat Police Station alleging that some Home guard volunteers had forged an order in the name of Dy. Commandant General showing their promotion to the rank of Divisional Commanders from the rank of Senior Platoon Commanders. On internal enquiry, the names of the present petitioners figured as the authors of the alleged promotion order. The FIR was registered as Porompat PS case No. 78 (5) 03 Under Section 420/406/468/471read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" in short) was submitted on 28-8-2003. However, the Final Report was not accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal. While rejecting the Final Report vide order dated 31-1-2004, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the case, more particularly, to ascertain as to how the forged letter came in possession of the Commandant. On such remand, the case was re-investigated and another Final Report on 21-10-2006. This Final Report was also turned down and another direction to re-investigate the case was issued on 26-3-2007. Thereafter, the petitioners, whose names figured in the FIR approached this Court by filing a common Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR The said petition was registered as Cril. Petition No. 7 of 2007, which was disposed of on 18-9-2007 directing the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the case as per the direction of Chief Judicial Magistrate giving four months time for such re-investigation. After expiry of the period fixed by this Court for re-investigation, these criminal petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR. 4. Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with investigation of cognizable and non-cognizable offences. After expiry of the period fixed by this Court for re-investigation, these criminal petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR. 4. Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with investigation of cognizable and non-cognizable offences. After completion of the investigation, the investigating police officer submitted his report to the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station as required under Section 168Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the report is forwarded to the Court under Section 173 for acceptance. The Final Reports are of two categories. One is covered under Section 169 and other one is covered by Section 170. If the police report says that there is no evidence against the accused persons, it is called as "Final Report" in common parlance and the report submitted under Section 170 with sufficient evidence is commonly known as "Charge-sheet". 5. For the purpose of effective disposal of these criminal petitions, it is necessary to reproduce Section 169 and the relevant provisions of Sees. 170 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as under: 169. Release of accused when evidence deficient.- If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. 170 Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient.- (1) if, upon an Investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day today before such Magistrate until otherwise directed. (2) to (4) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 173. (2) to (4) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.- (1) to (7) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed: and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) shall as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2). 6. Since the provisions of Section 190 CrPC may also have relevance in this order, the relevant part of the said provision is also extracted: 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the Second class specially empowered in this behalf under Sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx 7. The basis question, which needs to be examined in the present cases, is the power and procedure of judicial magistrates in case of submission of Final Reports under Section 169 Cr.P.C. The law in this regard was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases and a few of those are being referred herein below. 8. In the case of R.N. Chatterjee v. Havildar Kuer Singh [1970] 3 SCR 716, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a magistrate cannot direct the Investigating Officer to submit charge-sheet but he can remand the case for further investigation or it can take cognizance of the evidence on the basis of police report. The relevant observations are as below: 13. The relevant observations are as below: 13. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not empower the magistrate to ask the police to submit a charge-sheet it, however, the magistrate is of opinion that the report submitted by the police requires further investigation the magistrate may order investigation under Section156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Directing a further investigation is entirely different from asking the police to submit a charge-sheet. Furthermore, Section 190(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the magistrate to take cognizance of an offence notwithstanding a contrary opinion of the police. 9. The power of the Court to order further investigation within the sweep of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was again found in the case of Hemant Dasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2001 CriLJ 4190. The parameters of reinvestigation have been laid down in the following words: 16. Although the said Sub-section does not, in specific terms, mention about the powers of the Court to order further investigation the power of the police to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can be triggered into motion at the instance of the Court. When any such order is passed by a Court which has the jurisdiction to do so he would not be a proper exercise of revisional powers to interfere therewith because the further investigation would only be for the ends of justice. After the further investigation, the authority conducting such investigation can either reach the same conclusion and reiterate it can reach a different conclusion. During such extended investigation, the officers can either act on the same materials or on other materials which may come to their notice. It is for the investigating agency to exercise its power when it is put back to that track. If they come to the same conclusion it is of added advantage to the persons against whom the allegations were made, and if the allegations are found false again the complainant would be in trouble. So from any point of view the Special Judge's direction would be of advantage for the ends of justice. It is too premature for the High Court to predict that the Investigating Officer would not be able to collect any further material at all. That is an area which should have been left to the Investigating Officer to survey and recheck. 10. It is too premature for the High Court to predict that the Investigating Officer would not be able to collect any further material at all. That is an area which should have been left to the Investigating Officer to survey and recheck. 10. Again, in the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja 2003 CriLJ 3117 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the prerogative of the Investigating Officer to file his report either under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate has no role to play at this stage. How ever, the concerned Magistrate possesses power to reject any such Final Report and proceed under Section 190. This observation has been made in para No. 14 which is extracted below for ready reference: 14. The Magistrate is no doubt not bound to accept the final report (sometimes called as closer report) submitted by the police and if he feels that the evidence and material collected during investigation justify prosecution of the accused, he may not accept the final report and take cognizance of the offence and summon the accused but this does not mean that he would be interfering with the investigation as such. He would be doing so in exercise of powers conferred by Section 190 Cr. P.C. The statutory provisions are, therefore, absolutely clear that the Court interfere with the investigation. 11. Similar line of view was taken in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of Madhaya Pradesh reported in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a police report under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. is a conclusion of an investigating officer and such conclusions can only form the basis for competent Court to take cognizance thereupon under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code and the Court may not rely on the investigation and result thereon. In this way, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the police report is not a conclusive document to close further investigation or trial. 12. It appears to me that the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police 1985 CriLJ 1521 is the earliest authority on the point. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that on receipt of a report from the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the nature of Final Report stating that there are no evidence of offence against the accused persons. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that on receipt of a report from the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the nature of Final Report stating that there are no evidence of offence against the accused persons. The following three options are left open to the Court: (i) The Court may, accept and drop the proceedings; or (ii) The Court may disagree with the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process if it takes the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, or (iii) The Court may direct further investigation to be made by the police. 13. A survey of the authorities with regard to the powers and functions of judicial magistrates on receipt of Final Reports from the Investigating Agency shows that magistrates do not possess unfettered power to interfere in the day-to-day investigation. It also stems out from the authorities that directions for reinvestigation cannot be given with sole idea to convert the Final Report submitted under Section 169 to that under Charge Sheet under Section 170 Cr.P.C. In my considered opinion, direction of reinvestigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. can be issued to obtain further evidence/materials to satisfy the Court that a Final Report/Charge-sheet has been submitted bona fide. To say it differently, any direction for further investigation can be passed with the sole aim of advancing justice and preventing abuse of powers in criminal law. With this objective in mind, if a Magistrate finds that a Final Report has been submitted and there being no evidence against the accused the same may-be accepted with due notice to the complainant. At the same time, judicial magistrates can also take cognizance of any offence made out from the evidence and materials produced before the Court with the Final Report. 13.1 The above apart, if a Magistrate is not satisfied with the conclusions of the Investigating Officer, he can as well travel beyond the Pinal Report and receive further evidence as may be proffered by the complainant to take an independent decision whether to take cognizance of any offence. This view has been taken by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Utpal Chandra Bhuyan (Dr.) and Ors. v. State of Assam reported in 2008 (1) GLT 725. This view has been taken by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Utpal Chandra Bhuyan (Dr.) and Ors. v. State of Assam reported in 2008 (1) GLT 725. In that case, the High Court has approved recording of statements of the complainant and other witnesses to proceed with the case despite filing of Final Report by the Investigation Officer. 14. If A Judicial Magistrate thinks that a Final Report is not acceptable on the face of materials available before him, he can proceed under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. which empowers the Magistrates to take cognizance of any offence which is prima-facie made out upon a complaint of facts; upon a police report; upon information from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge. In my considered opinion, powers conferred upon judicial magistrates under Section190 Cr.P.C. are wide enough so as to embrace the materials collected by the Investigating Officer within the sweep of complaint of facts or information received from a person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge embodied in the provision of law. 15. During the course of hearing, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that as per the direction of this Court given in the earlier Criminal Petition No. 7 of 2007, the Investigating Officer made further investigation. However, the materials collected by the Investigating Officer being short of submitting the charge sheet, another Final Report has been submitted. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the State. I find that the I.O. has submitted third Final Report being F.R. No. 9 of 2008 dated 16-3-2008. Hence, it would be just and proper to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal to consider the same in the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in this judgment. 16. Shri Ch. Lokendro, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that In view of the repeated Final Reports this Court should quash the FIR. 17. In the well cited case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Crl LJ 527, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for exercising inherent powers conferred upon the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. 17. In the well cited case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Crl LJ 527, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for exercising inherent powers conferred upon the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, inter-alia, held that if the allegations made in the FIR, do not prima-facie make out a case against the accused or it does not disclose a cognisable offence or if the allegations are found absurd and inherently improbable or if there is an express legal bar to register a case, the FIR or a criminal proceeding can be quashed. 18. Again in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2003 CriLJ 2028, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that High Court may also take into consideration If there is any special feature to consider it expedient to close the prosecution. In the case before me, the FIR and Police Reports clearly speaks of forgery of a promotion letter. The question whether there are materials to show that the forgery was committed by the petitioners will be looked into by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. As a whole, I also do not find any special feature to depart from the normal rule that the trial Court should be given a chance to apply its judicial mind as to whether the Final Report can be accepted in toto or not. 19. Very recently in the case of Hamida v. Rashid alias Rasheed and Ors. reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rare cases to correct patently illegalities or to prevent miscarriage of justice. 19A. Beside this, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised. I have already noted earlier that the I.O. has submitted his third Final Report. Hence, it would be just and proper for the petitioners to approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for appropriate relief. Powers and limitations of Judicial Magistrates under Sections 169, 170 and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have already been laid down in this judgment. Hence, it would be just and proper for the petitioners to approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for appropriate relief. Powers and limitations of Judicial Magistrates under Sections 169, 170 and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have already been laid down in this judgment. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal would pass appropriate order applying his judicial mind whether the Final Report can be accepted or is it a case whether cognizance can be taken on the basis of materials placed with such report. 20. Both the revision applications are disposed of with the directions and observations made hereinabove in this Judgment. 21. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this Judgment to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal for necessary action.