Judgment Ms. Harsha Devani, J.—By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara, in Criminal Revision Application No. 311 of 2007 and seeks a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara to issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) against the accused person in connection with the offences registered vide J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara I-C.R. No. 145 of 2006. 2. The petitioner herein lodged a first information report being J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara I-C.R. No. 145 of 2006 against one Urmilbhai Hasmukhbhai Shah, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the police carried out investigation and the investigating officer filed a report under Section 173 of the Code requesting the court to grant “B” summary (which means that the complaint was found false). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 8.2.2007 granted “B” summary as sought for by the investigating officer. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in revision before the Sessions Court at Vadodara, in Criminal Revision Application No. 133 of 2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-4, Vadodara by his order dated 27.7.2007 allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 8.2.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate in connection with the above referred first information report and directed the learned Magistrate to issue a notice to the petitioner – complainant and give sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order on the “B” summary report. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed detailed objections before the learned Magistrate, Vadodara against the “B” summary sought for by the Investigating Officer. By an order dated 26.11.2007 passed below Exhibit-3, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara directed further inquiry under Section 202 of the Code by the Police Inspector, J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara with a further direction to submit the report within 30 days. The petitioner, once again, went in revision before the District and Sessions Court, Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No. 311 of 2007. The petitioner, once again, went in revision before the District and Sessions Court, Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No. 311 of 2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-4, Vadodara by the impugned order dated 22.2.2008 rejected the revision application on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed an order of further inquiry. The inquiry has been going on and the report is yet to be collected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The question of granting or refusing ‘B’ summary would be decided only when the report is finally received and order is passed. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the order impugned before him was an interlocutory order and as such the revision was not maintainable. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the relief noted hereinabove. 4. The petitioner appears in person and has submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.2.2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was required to issue a notice to the petitioner and give sufficient opportunities to the petitioner before passing any order on the “B” summary report submitted by the investigating officer. It was further submitted that learned Magistrate in terms of the direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-4, Vadodara it was incumbent upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to firstly decide on the question as to whether or not to accept the “B” summary report, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that when earlier on the basis of the first information report lodged by the petitioner the J.P. Road Police Station had submitted a “B-Summary” report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in against directing inquiry to be made through the same Police Station under Section 202 of the Code. It was submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the revision as not maintainable by holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was yet to decide as to whether or not to accept the “B-Summary” report. It was submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the revision as not maintainable by holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was yet to decide as to whether or not to accept the “B-Summary” report. It was fervently with folded hands urged that the officers of the J.P. Station are biased against the petitioner and have been subjecting her to undue harassment and as such considering the nature of the earlier report submitted pursuant to the first information report lodged by her, whereby the Investigating Officer had stated that the petitioner had lost her mental balance, she did not expect a fair and impartial inquiry. It was, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Magistrate are required to be quashed and set aside and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate be directed to issue process under Section 204 of the Code. 5. A perusal of the record of the case indicates that by an order dated 7.3.2012, this Court had directed Mr. L. B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing in the matter at the relevant time to place on record what had happened after the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing inquiry under Section 202 of the Code through the Police Inspector, J. P. Road Police Station and had adjourned the matter to 16.3.2012, on condition that the State shall deposit a sum of Rs.750/- with the Registry of this court on or before the next date of hearing. It was further directed that the petitioner – party-in-person shall be permitted to withdraw the same. The Registry has put up a note that the State has not complied with the aforesaid order and a sum of Rs.750/-, as directed by this court, has not been deposited with the Registry. 6. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that pursuant to the first information report lodged by the petitioner herein, the investigating officer had submitted a “B” summary report which was granted by the learned Magistrate without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. 6. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that pursuant to the first information report lodged by the petitioner herein, the investigating officer had submitted a “B” summary report which was granted by the learned Magistrate without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order accepting the “B” summary report, had filed a revision application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which came to be allowed with a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue a notice to the applicant again and give sufficient opportunities to the applicant before accepting the “B” summary report. Thus, pursuant to the said direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-4, Vadodara, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein on the question as to whether or not to accept the “B” summary report submitted by the investigating officer. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after considering the objections filed by the petitioner herein has recorded that the nature of the allegations made by the petitioner, the same cannot be false and as such the Investigating Officer has carried out a false inquiry. Considering the record of the case and the submissions of the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the matter is required to be investigated afresh and directed that the Police Inspector, J.P. Road Police Station to carry out an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and send his report within a period of thirty days. 7. Thus, on a perusal of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate it is apparent that he has not accepted the “B- Summary” report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justified in observing that the acceptance or otherwise of the “B-Summary” report would be decided after the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. The said observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not in consonance with the provisions of the Code, inasmuch as once an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code has been ordered, it implies that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and has not accepted the “B-Summary” report submitted by the Investigating Officer. 8. The said observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not in consonance with the provisions of the Code, inasmuch as once an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code has been ordered, it implies that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and has not accepted the “B-Summary” report submitted by the Investigating Officer. 8. In this matter, notice has been issued on 5.5.2008 and later on, by an order dated 26.8.2008 Rule came to be issued. At no point of time, any interim relief was granted in the matter. Under the circumstances, there was no stay operating against the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was, therefore, called upon to inquire as regards the status of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code as directed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the order dated 26.11.2007. Even today, despite the fact that an officer from the concerned police station is present before the Court, the respondent is not in a position to inform the court as regards the status of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. Not only that, the respondent has not deposited a sum of Rs.750/- as directed by this Court vide order dated 7.3.2012. 9. As can be seen from the order dated 26.11.2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after considering the record as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, was of the view that the Investigating Officer had carried out a false investigation and that fresh investigation is required to be carried out in the matter in the interest of justice and has accordingly directed inquiry to be made under Section 202 of the Code through the Police Inspector, J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara. A perusal of the “B” summary report submitted by the concerned investigating officer indicates a biased approach inasmuch as the investigating officer, after considering the material collected by him, has stated that the petitioner herein has lost her mental balance. It is surprising as how an investigating officer while investigating into an offence is competent to pronounce on the mental stability of the first informant, that too, without any certificate or report of a medical officer, which is clearly indicative of the extent of bias on the part of the concerned officer. It is surprising as how an investigating officer while investigating into an offence is competent to pronounce on the mental stability of the first informant, that too, without any certificate or report of a medical officer, which is clearly indicative of the extent of bias on the part of the concerned officer. However, as noted hereinabove, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has, by his order dated 26.11.2009 directed inquiry under Section 202 of the Code through the Police Inspector, J.P. Road Police Station which is the same Police Station which had carried out the investigation pursuant to the first information report filed by the petitioner. 10. From the facts noted hereinabove it is apparent that earlier, in pursuance of the first information report lodged by the petitioner, investigation had been carried out by the J.P. Road Police Station, which was found to be false by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who has, therefore, thought it fit to cause fresh inquiry to be made under Section 202 of the Code. However, since inquiry the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code is directed to be made through the same Police Station which had earlier submitted the report seeking “B-Summary”, the grievance voiced by the petitioner appears to be justified. In the light of the biased approach adopted by the Investigating Officer while carrying out investigation pursuant to the first information report lodged by the petitioner, it is apparent that no fruitful purpose would be served by causing an inquiry to be made under Section 202 of the Code through the J.P. Road Police Station. Under the circumstances, the Court is of the view that, if instead of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code being made through the Police Inspector, J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara, as directed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the ends of justice would be met if the Assistant Commissioner of Police, “B” Division, Vadodara is directed to name an independent and impartial Police Officer from a Police Station other than the J.P. Road Police Station, for the purpose of carrying out the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. 11. 11. In the memorandum of the petition it has been contended that once investigation has been carried out under Section 156(3) of the Code, it is not permissible to direct inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and that the learned Magistrate was required to directly issue process under Section 204 of the Code. The said contention appears to be misconceived, inasmuch as the legal position is that once cognizance has been taken and an inquiry has been ordered, investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code cannot be ordered as that would amount to reverting to the pre-cognizance stage. However, if the Magistrate does not accept the police report under Section 173(1) of the Code, it is always open for him to take cognizance of the offence and either issue process, or cause inquiry to be made under Section 202 of the Code and either issue process or dismiss the complaint. At this stage it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-cum-Dy. Secy. Finance vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), (1980) 4 SCC 631 wherein it has been held thus: “Thus, a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under Section 156(3) and receives a police report under Section 173(1), may, thereafter, do one of three things: (1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.” 12. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.” 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the revision application by holding that the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing an inquiry to be made under Section 202 of the Code, is merely an interlocutory order and as such, the revision is not maintainable. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed to the following extent. The impugned order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-4, Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No. 311 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, to the extent the same orders inquiry under Section 202 of the Code through the Police Inspector, J.P Road Police Station is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, accordingly directed that the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code shall be made by such independent and impartial Police Officer of a Police Station other than the J.P. Road Police Station as named by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, “B” Division, Vadodara. The concerned Police Officer shall upon carrying out due inquiry, submit his report as early as possible and preferably within a period of sixty days from the date when he is entrusted with the inquiry. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, “B” Division, Vadodara, shall name such officer within a period of one week from the receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly, to the aforesaid extent. With no order as to costs. 14. However, the respondent State of Gujarat shall deposit the costs as directed by this court by the order dated 7.03.2012 failing which appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with law. Upon such amount being deposited, the Registry shall forthwith pay the same to the petitioner. 15. Registry to forthwith communicate this order to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, “B” Division, Vadodara for due compliance with the directions regarding appointment of a police officer for making the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. P P P P P