ORDER:- Investigation in case FIR No. 15/2006 Police Station VOG, Jammu hav­ing been concluded as not proved, report under Section 169, Cr. P.C. was presented before Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu. Learned Special Judge vide order dated 2-5-2008 recorded agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer, accepted the report and directed re­lease of record, if any, seized during investi­gation. 2. Petitioner is complainant in the case. It is at his instance that case FIR No. 15/2006 Police Station VOG, was registered. The petitioner's grievance is that after report un­der Section 169, Cr. P.C. was presented be­fore the competent Court, the right course for the Courts was to issue notice to peti­tioner and afford the petitioner an opportu­nity to oppose/file objections against the re­port. It is insisted that the petitioner had a right not only to question the mode and man­ner in which the investigation was conducted but also results of the investigation. 3. I have gone through the petition and record received from the Court below. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General. 4. The investigation in cognizable cases may lead the Investigating Officer to the con­clusion that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to proceed against the accused and prompt the Investi­gating Officer to conclude the investigation as "not proved" or the accused "not traced". In either case, the investigation is to be closed and "Final Report" submitted to the Magis­trate. The other course open to the Investi­gating Officer is to conclude investigation as "proved" and present the charge-sheet against the accused in the competent pro­vided that there is sufficient evidence or rea­sonable ground to proceed against the ac­cused. In either case, the Investigating Of­ficer is to submit report (final report or charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173, Cr. P.C. before the Magistrate having jurisdic­tion in the matter. 5. The report under Section 169, Cr. P.C. or a "final report" is submitted to the Magis­trate so as to pass it through Judicial filtra­tion/scrutiny, get material collected during investigation perused by the Magistrate and enable him to see whether the investigation has gone on the right track and whether the results of the investigation are sustainable on collected material. 6. The weft and wrap of Part V Chapter XIV, of the Code of Criminal Procedure Smvt. 6. The weft and wrap of Part V Chapter XIV, of the Code of Criminal Procedure Smvt. 1989 titled "information to the police and their powers to investigate", make it abundantly clear that Magistrate has pivotal role to play during investigation of cogni­zable case and the Magistrate at no point of time looses control over investigation. Sec­tion 156, Cr. PC. while empowering officer incharge of police station to investigate any cognizable case, without the order of Mag­istrate, empowers the Magistrate to order investigation in such a case. Section 157, Cr. PC. casts a duty on the officer incharge of police station to forthwith sent copy of FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cogni­zance of such offence upon the police report. The purpose is to ensure transparency in in­vestigation, rule out all chances of concoc­tion and make the Magistrate aware of the investigation enabling him to issue any di­rection in accordance with law as may be nec­essary as the investigation proceeds. In terms of section 158, Cr. PC. instructions, if any, given by the superior police officer are also to be transmitted to the Magistrate. The Mag­istrate after the receipt of FIR and the instruc­tions given by the superior police officer, may under Section 159, Cr. PC. direct the inves­tigation or pass such order as he deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. As the investigation proceeds, the Magistrate may record statement or confessions made in accordance with Section 164, Cr. PC. The Investigating Officer in the event of arrest of the accused, is required to produce the ac­cused before the Magistrate within 21 hours of his arrest along with case diary detailing the material that prompted his arrest, before the Magistrate and the Magistrate may authorise his detention in custody as he thinks fit for the period prescribed under law. The Magistrate on perusal of the material produced, may for the reasons detailed, remand the accused to custody and in such event the accused is to be let off on such terms as the Magistrate deems fit. Once the investigation is completed, conclusion arrived at is again to be placed before the Magistrate compe­tent to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused. Once the investigation is completed, conclusion arrived at is again to be placed before the Magistrate compe­tent to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused. The Investigating Of­ficer on investigation may find that the commisison of offence is not proved, the ac­cused is not connected with the offence or that though the commission of offence is proved, it is not possible to trace the accused. In such case, the report drawn by the Inves­tigating Officer is called "Final Report". In case the investigation takes a different direc­tion and enough material is collected during investigation prima facie indicating involve­ment of the accused, report submitted is called "charge-sheet". The Investigating Of­ficer, whatever way the investigation shapes up is to present the "final report" or the "charge-sheet as the case may be in terms of Section 173 before the Magistrate. 7. The Magistrate while dealing with the final report, functions as a Court. The Mag­istrate on considering the final report, is to take his own decision unguided by the con­clusion drawn by the Investigating Officer or observation of any Senior Police Officer. The Magistrate is free to either accept the report and close the proceedings or to take a view that the investigation has not proceeded in right manner or that important evidence has been left out or the matter needs to be investigated touching the aspects delineated/identified by the Magistrate. In such event, the Magistrate may issue appropriate direc­tion under Section 156(3), Cr. PC. and re­quire the Investigating Officer to make in­vestigation. In any case, the proceedings emanating from the "final report" are judi­cial proceedings and the order passed is ju­dicial order. The Magistrate is required to give reasons in support of conclusion arrived at. The very nature of the power exercised by the Magistrate, makes it necessary that the Magistrate issues notice to the complain­ant before rushing to the conclusion and af­ford an opportunity to the complainant, at whose instance the case has been registered, to project his view point as regards the mode and manner of the investigation and out-come of the investigation. The complainant after all, is the person who went with a grievance to the police and has interest in fair and trans­parent investigation whereby the true facts are dug out and the accused brought to book. The complainant after all, is the person who went with a grievance to the police and has interest in fair and trans­parent investigation whereby the true facts are dug out and the accused brought to book. It would not be thus, permissible to close the case at the back of the complainant and with­out giving him an opportunity to question the mode and manner of the investigation and contest the result of the investigation. Need­less to mention that the complainant is within in his rights to not only oppose the prayer for closure of the investigation case but also has to file a protest petition insisting the cog­nizance of offence be taken against the ac­cused. The complainant cannot make use of such right unless he is issued a notice by the Magistrate on receipt of the "final report" asking the complainant to appear if he so chooses and give his response to the prayer made by the Investigating Officer. 8. In the present case, the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu has recorded agreement with the "Final Report" without notice to the complainant and affording the complainant an opportunity to contest the "Final Report" and oppose the prayer for clo­sure of investigation. So viewed, the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu has not acted in accordance with law while pass­ing the order dated 22-5-2008, accepting the "Final Report" and closing the investigation. 9. For the reasons discussed, the petition is allowed, order dated 22-5-2008 is quashed and the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu is directed to pass fresh order on "Fi­nal Report" in accordance with law after af­fording the complainant an opportunity to file his objections, if any, and contest the "Final Report". Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.