JUDGMENT P. DEVADASS, J. 1. The petitioner/defacto complainant in Cr. No. 132 of 2014 came forward with this petition for a direction to transfer the investigation of the case from the fourth respondent, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil to any other competent agency for fair investigation. 2. The Thangavelu and one Thirupathi are salesmen in TASMAC shop No. 10668 situate on the Sankarankovil-Kazhugumalai road in Sankarankovil. The shop had to be closed after the prescribed hours. Thereafter, if it is opened for sale, it is against the Rules. 3. Thangavelu alleged in his complaint alleged that on 23.07.2013, at about 10.30 p.m. some policemen attached to Sankarankovil Town Police Station came to the said shop, demanded 10 quarter bottles as superior police officers have come. As it is against rules, Thangavelu refused to obey them. Then, Thirupathi was also present. In the circumstances, A-1-Selvakumar, Sub-Inspector of Police slapped Thagavelu; while A-2-Prabakaran, Inspctor called him by his caste and also assaulted him. They have also forcibly taken Rs. 560 from his pocket. 4. In Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 15079 of 2013 filed by Thangavelu, this Court issued direction. Under the said circumstances, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station registered a case in Cr. No. 132 of 2014 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 3(i) (x) of SC & ST Act. 5. The grievance of the defacto complainant is that there is no proper and fair investigation in the said case. Hence, he wants change of investigation agency. 6. The fourth respondent filed counter. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that fair investigation has been done and after getting opinion from the Special Public Prosecutor, the case was treated as Mistake of Fact (M.F.) the negative final report has been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, namely, the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. 8. In the additional typed set of papers filed by Thangavelu, it is seen that in his application filed under the Right to Information Act, he was furnished with a negative final report of the Investigation Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Sub-Division in Cr. No. 132 of 2014. 9. Result of the case given by the complainant must be made known to him. This is the law. Now, Thangavelu says that sofar the concerned Police has not furnished him a copy of the final report in Cr. No. 132 of 2014. 10. No. 132 of 2014. 9. Result of the case given by the complainant must be made known to him. This is the law. Now, Thangavelu says that sofar the concerned Police has not furnished him a copy of the final report in Cr. No. 132 of 2014. 10. In such circumstances, as directed, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) furnished a copy of the final report in Cr. No. 132 of 2014 to the petitioner. 11. Now, negative final report has been filed by the Investigation Officer before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. 12. Now, the ball is in the Court of the said Magistrate, Sankarankovil. The learned Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and take further action as per law. 13. The learned Magistrate has got several options. One, on perusal of the final report as well as the statement of witnesses and the documents, if he accepts, he can treat the case as mistake of fact. After the perusal of the records, if he finds any prima facie case, he has to proceed accordingly as per law (See – Sections 190, 204 Cr. P.C). But on perusal, if he finds that some other aspects have to be clarified by the Investigation Officer, he can call for clarification from the Investigation Officer and take further decision. But, while doing so, the Magistrate cannot direct the manner of investigation. 14. If he refuses to accept the negative final report of the Investigation Officer and takes cognizance based on the materials produced along with final report, he can proceed further. The question of issuing notice in the said circumstances to the defacto complainant does not arise. 15. But, before taking any action adverse to the defacto complainant, it is the duty of the Magistrate to send a notice to the defacto complainant inviting his objections, if any. This objection is also called protest petition. If he gives any objections in writing, the learned Magistrate has to proceed it as a complaint case, (See – Sections 200, 202, 204 and 203 Cr. P.C). 16. Now, that investigation is over and final report also has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the question of transfer of investigation does not arise. But at any point of time, as already stated, still the ball is in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. P.C). 16. Now, that investigation is over and final report also has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the question of transfer of investigation does not arise. But at any point of time, as already stated, still the ball is in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. He has to take a decision, after hearing the defacto complainant. This is the position of law. (See – Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 . 17. In the circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil will take further action on the final report filed by the fourth respondent namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Sub-Division in Cr. No. 132 of 2014, following the observations in this judgment, as per law. 18. With this direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.