JUDGMENT AND ORDER : M.R. Pathak, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Ainil Rinliana Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Though notices were sent to respondent Nos. 6 to 8 by registered post with A.D. on 24.11.2016 itself but till date neither the A/D card nor the unserved notices have been received back by the Registry of this Court. As such service is deemed to be complete. 3. Perused the relevant record of the case that was called for by this Court on 18.01.2014 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champhai. 4. On 08.09.2014, the petitioner as an informant lodged an FIR before the Ngopa Police Station, Champhai District stating that his younger brother, G/5013917 Ajeet Kumar Rai, who was serving in the 39th Assam Rifle, B. Coy, Mimbung Post on 18.08.2014 met with an unnatural death of by shooting himself with his service weapon of AK-47. In the said FIR, the said informant also stated many facts alleging about enmity of some personnel of said security force with his brother and that authorities of the Assam Rifles also removed the body of his brother from the place of occurrence before police could reach the place and had done his post mortem at Aizawl in spite of having such facility at Community Health Centre (CHC) at Ngopa, nearest to the place of the incident. 5. The said FIR of the petitioner/informant was registered as Ngopa Police Station Case No. 28/2014 under Sections 302/120 'B' IPC read with Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. After completion of the investigation of the said case, the concerned Investigating Officer through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Khawzawl submitted the Final Report under Section 173 CrPC in said Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014 vide No. 1/2016 dated 23.02.2016 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Champhai on 26.02.2016. 6. Later, the said Final Report was placed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Champhai. 6. Later, the said Final Report was placed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Champhai. After perusing the same learned Magistrate found that the said report itself revealed that the Investigating Agency did not leave any stone unturned while conducting the investigation, that there is no hope of detection of culprit(s) in future and that the said case may be revived if any case is detected in future and on the basis of said report of the concerned Police Officer, the learned JMFC, Champhai by an order dated 01.03.2016, accepted the said Final Report No. 1/2016 dated 23.02.2016 submitted by the concerned Police Officer in said Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014, without informing or giving any opportunity of hearing to the informant of the case, the present petitioner. 7. Hence this criminal petition for setting aside and quash the order dated 01.03.2016 of the JMFC, Champhai passed in said Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014, accepting the Final Report No. 1/2016 dated 23.02.2016 submitted in the said Ngopa PS Case and to issue necessary direction to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the informant of said Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014, while considering the said Final Report dated 23.02.2016. 8. Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC regarding report of police officer on completion of investigation, clearly provides that the concerned Police Officer while submitting the report under the said section is also required to communicate the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given, as per the manner that may be prescribed by the State Government. 9. From the record of this case and the original copy of the Final Report dated 23.02.2016 in said Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014 submitted before the CJM and/or JMFC, Champhai, it is seen that neither the concerned Police Officer, i.e. the SDPO, Khawzawl communicated the informant of said Ngopa PS Case, i.e. the petitioner regarding the action taken by him in said case nor communicated the said report to him. Further, it is also seen that the learned JMFC, Champhai while accepting the Final Report dated 23.02.2016 of said Ngopa PS Case did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, informant of the Ngopa PS Case 10. Further, it is also seen that the learned JMFC, Champhai while accepting the Final Report dated 23.02.2016 of said Ngopa PS Case did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, informant of the Ngopa PS Case 10. A three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to such Final Report under Section 173 CrPC submitted by the police officer and the action to be taken by the Magistrate on such report, in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537 have observed that - "When the report forwarded by the officer-in-charge of a police station to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses : (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156." 11. In the said case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that - "If the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that though there is sufficient ground for proceeding against some, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against others mentioned in the first information report, the informant would certainly be prejudiced because the first information report lodged by him would have failed of its purpose, wholly or in part. Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and effective action being taken on the first information report lodged by him is clearly recognised by the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 154, sub-section (2) of Section 157 and sub-section (2) (ii) of Section 173, it must be presumed that the informant would equally be interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process, because that would be culmination of the first information report lodged by him." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in said Bhagwant Singh (supra) held that - "when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-charge of a police station under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report." 13. In the said case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - "Because in any case the action taken by the police on the first information report has to be communicated to the informant and a copy of the report has to be supplied to him under sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173 and if that be so, we do not see any reason why it should be difficult to serve notice of the consideration of the report on the informant. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate." 14. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate." 14. In the case of Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 768 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - "There is no provision in the Code to file a protest petition by the informant who lodged the first information report. But this has been the practise. Absence of a provision in the Code relating to filing of a protest petition has been considered in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra)." "Therefore, there is no shadow of doubt that the informant is entitled to a notice and an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report (submitted by police officer under Section 173 CrPC)." "Therefore, the stress is on the issue of notice by the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report. If the informant is not aware as to when the matter is to be considered, obviously, he cannot be faulted, even if protest petition in reply to the notice issued by the police has been filed belatedly. But as indicated in Bhagwant Singh case(supra) the right is conferred on the informant." 15. A single Judge of this Court in the case of Atul Chandra Buragohain v. State of Assam, reported in (2001) 1 GLR 707 also observed that - "the acceptance of such a 'final report' is not possible without giving an opportunity to the complainant or informant to have his say as to why the report shall not be accepted." 16. While deciding the power of the Judicial Magistrate in not accepting the Final Report filed by police officer in a case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State through Inspector of Police and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 774 considered the decision of Bhagwant Singh (supra) Case. 17. While deciding the power of the Judicial Magistrate in not accepting the Final Report filed by police officer in a case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State through Inspector of Police and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 774 considered the decision of Bhagwant Singh (supra) Case. 17. In the present case, it is seen that the learned JMFC, Champhai without affording any opportunity of hearing to the informant/the petitioner accepted the Final Report No. 1/2016 dated 23.02.2016 submitted by the SDPO, Khawzawl on 26.02.2016 in Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014 of which the petitioner was the informant and this act of JMFC, Champhai has definitely prejudiced the petitioner, the informant of said Ngopa PS Case and because of such illegal acceptance of the said Final Report by the said Magistrate, that too, without affording the petitioner/informant any such opportunity of hearing, the said informant failed to persuade and/or impress the Magistrate to place his ground by filing his protest petition. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, exercising the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, this Court sets aside and quash the order dated 01.03.2016 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champhai passed in said Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014, accepting the Final Report No. 1/2016 dated 23.02.2016 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Khawzawl on 26.02.2016 in said Ngopa PS Case. 19. Further, the said Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champhai is directed to issue notice to the petitioner/informant of Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014 enabling him to file a Protest Petition with regard to the Final Report No. 1/2016 dated 23.02.2016 in Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014, if so he desires and to provide him an opportunity of hearing at the time of consideration of the said Final Report. Thereafter, the said Magistrate shall pass an appropriate order with regard to the said Final Report by taking any one of the three options as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra), noted above. 20. With the above direction and observation, this criminal petition stands allowed. 21. Registry shall send back the LCR of Ngopa PS Case No. 28/2014 to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champhai, along with a copy of this order, forthwith.