JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13; and Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department for the respondent nos. 4 & 5. 2. The relevant and necessary events leading to the institution of this writ petition can be stated, in brief, at first. 3. The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle (Bolero Power + ZLX MICRO HYBRID BS4) bearing Registration no. AS-26/B-6001, Chassis no. MAIXK2WJXJ6H43332 and Engine no. WJJ6G68869 (‘the subject-vehicle’ for short). 4. The petitioner has stated that on 15.10.2019, the subject-vehicle got stolen from the residence of one Amzad Ali at Madalijhar. In connection with the said incident of theft, the petitioner’s son, Saddam Hussain had lodged one First Information Report (FIR) before the Officer In-Charge, Sorbhog Police Station on 16.10.2019 and the said FIR was registered as Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 211/2019 under Section 379, IPC. On 19.10.2019, the petitioner intimated the incident of theft of the subject-vehicle to the respondent no. 4. The petitioner submitted another FIR before the Officer In-Charge, Bilasipara Police Station on 02.12.2019 stating inter-alia about the theft of the subject-vehicle and to take appropriate action for recovery of the subject-vehicle. The said FIR was registered as Bilasipara Police Station Case no. 1261/2019 under Sections 120(B)/379, IPC. The case, Bilasipara Police Station Case no. 1261/2019 was subsequently transferred to Sorbhog Police Station in terms of an Order dated 03.05.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara and it was registered as Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022. 5. The petitioner has raised an allegation that one of the Sub-Inspectors of Police, attached as In-Charge, Nayeralga Police Out Post under Bilasipara Police Station had a role in the non-recovery of the stolen subject-vehicle. Though the petitioner had represented about the involvement of the said official before a number of authorities, no action was found to have been taken in connection with those representations. It is noticed that a complaint filed by the petitioner before the State Police Accountability Commission, Assam was disposed of on 05.04.2023. 6. Though the petitioner had represented about the involvement of the said official before a number of authorities, no action was found to have been taken in connection with those representations. It is noticed that a complaint filed by the petitioner before the State Police Accountability Commission, Assam was disposed of on 05.04.2023. 6. The petitioner has further stated that he came to learn through one SMS (Annexure-12) dated 05.01.2021 from a Service Dealer (M/s Ashok Motors) that the subject-vehicle had been taken to the said Service Dealer at Mangaldoi for the purpose of servicing/repairing. When the vehicle history of the said Service Dealer could be collected by the petitioner, the petitioner had found that the name of the owner of the subject-vehicle was changed to and reflected as one Baijayanti Basumatary, a resident of Village-Panbari, P.O. Panbari, District-Chirang. 7. It transpires that after completing investigation in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case No. 211/2019, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case submitted a final report vide Final Report no. 114/2019 dated 31.12.2019. Similarly, Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022 had resulted into a final report, Final Report No. 02/2023 dated 31.01.2023. 8. On submission of the Final Report in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022, the petitioner was served with a notice by the jurisdictional Magistrate, that is, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrates, Barpeta asking him to appear before him and to file objection, if any, with regard to the Final Report submitted in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case No. 117/2022. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrates, Barpeta and filed a complaint against submission of the Final Report in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022. Thereafter, the learned SDJM, Barpeta by an Order dated 29.07.2024, had directed the Officer In-Charge Sorbhog Police Station to carry out further investigation in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 211/2022 by a new Investigating Officer. 9. It is in the above backdrop, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking inter-alia a direction to recover the subject-vehicle and hand it over to the petitioner. 10. When the writ petition was listed on 04.11.2024, Ms. 211/2022 by a new Investigating Officer. 9. It is in the above backdrop, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking inter-alia a direction to recover the subject-vehicle and hand it over to the petitioner. 10. When the writ petition was listed on 04.11.2024, Ms. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department was asked to obtain instruction from the concerned District Transport Officer (DTO) about the petitioner’s allegation that the registration of the subject-vehicle has been changed by deleting his name and in his place, the name of one Baijayanti Basumatary has been recorded as the registered owner of the subject-vehicle. 11. Ms. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department has submitted that necessary instructions have been furnished by the respondent no. 4 and placed a Communication bearing no. DTO/BNGN/Court/2024/912 dated 08.11.2024 of the District Transport Officer (DTO), Bongaingaon (the respondent no. 4), addressed to her. 12. In the Communication dated 08.11.2024, it has been reported that the registration number of the subject-vehicle, that is, AS-19/M-4822 has been blocked/blacklisted since 28.10.2019 as per Section 48(6) and Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act on receiving an application from the petitioner on 19.10.2019. The present status of the vehicle has been annexed as Annexure-1(A) and Annexure-1(B) to the said Communication dated 08.11.2024 and the copies of Annexure-1(A) and Annexure-1(B) have also been handed over to Mr. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner for his information. 13. Thus, the cloud regarding change of ownership of the subject-vehicle after its theft stands removed. 14. Mr. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that despite appointment of a new Investigating Officer (I.O.) by the Order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrates, Barpeta, the investigation of the case has been progressing as a snail’s pace and there is no recovery of the subject-vehicle. He has further submitted that no sincere efforts have been made by the I.O. of the case to recover the subject-vehicle and to collect any information from the petitioner as regards the possible places where the subject-vehicle is likely to be found. 15. From the Order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrates, Barpeta, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-19, it has emerged that after submission of the Final Report in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 15. From the Order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrates, Barpeta, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-19, it has emerged that after submission of the Final Report in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022, a notice was issued to the petitioner as the informant by the learned Magistrate before acceptance of the Final Report. It has further emerged that on receipt of the notice, the petitioner approached the Court of learned SDJM, Barpeta by way of a protest petition. It is settled that before a Magistrate proceeds to accept a final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ or ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) and exonerate the accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition and arrive at a conclusion thereafter. It has been held to the effect that while the Investigating Officer may rest content by producing the final report, which is the culmination of his efforts, the duty of the Magistrate is not one limited to readily accept a final report. It is incumbent upon the Magistrate to go through the materials, and after hearing the complainant and considering the contents of the protest petition, finally decide the future course of action to be, whether to continue with the matter or to bring the curtains down. 16. When a Report forwarded by the Police to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i), Cr.P.C. is placed before him several situations 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 either (i) accept the Report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (ii) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding; or (iii) may direct further investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. and require the Police to make a further Report. The Report may on the other hand state that according to the Police, no offence appears to have been committed. The Report may on the other hand state that according to the Police, no offence appears to have been committed. When such a Report is placed before the Magistrate he has again option of adopting one of the three courses open, that is, (i) he may accept the Report and drop the proceeding; or (ii) he may disagree with the Report and take the view that there is sufficient ground for further proceeding, take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the Police under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. The position is well settled that upon receipt of a Police Report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the Police Report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the Police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the Investigating Officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b), and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a), Cr.P.C. though it is open to him to act under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or Section 202, Cr.P.C. also. The informant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as the First Information Report lodged becomes wholly or partially ineffective. But where the Magistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as the First Information Report lodged becomes wholly or partially ineffective. Where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop the proceeding or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, notice to the informant and grant of opportunity of being heard in the matter becomes mandatory. [Ref: Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768 ] 17. The provisions contained in Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. had provided for a check by the Magistrate on the Police performing his duties under Chapter XII, Cr.P.C. In a case where the Magistrate would find that the Police had not done his duty of investigating the case at all, or had not done it satisfactorily, he could issue a direction to the Police to do the investigation properly, and could monitor the same. A Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence mentioned in a complaint, could order investigation under Section 156(3), r/w Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. 18. It has been observed in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 , that the Magistrate had very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). It has been observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. simply because a person had a grievance that his FIR had not been registered by the Police, or after being registered, proper investigation had not been done by the police. It has been observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. simply because a person had a grievance that his FIR had not been registered by the Police, or after being registered, proper investigation had not been done by the police. For this kind of grievance, the remedy lied under Sections 36, Cr.P.C. and Section 154(3), Cr.P.C. before the Police Officers concerned at first, and if that was of no avail, under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. It has been observed that an alternative remedy would not be an absolute bar to prefer the writ petition but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. 19. It has been observed as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu (supra) that there was an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the Officer In-Charge of the concerned Police Station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that might be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring of the same. 20. It is discernible from the Order dated 29.07.2024 of the learned SDJM, Barpeta that after submission of the objection/Protest Petition by the petitioner as the informant objecting to the acceptance of the Final Report submitted in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022, the learned Magistrate perused the materials in the case diary. Upon such perusal, the learned Magistrate had arrived at an opinion that there were sufficient incriminating materials against the accused. The learned Magistrate had thereafter, sent the case records of Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022 to the Officer In-Charge, Sorbhog Police Station for further investigation by another Investigating Officer and to submit a report in Final Form. 21. Sub-Section (3) of Section 156, Cr.P.C. reads as under: 156. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case: (1) *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 22. 21. Sub-Section (3) of Section 156, Cr.P.C. reads as under: 156. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case: (1) *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 22. At this juncture, it is also apt to refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sudhir Bhaskarrao vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277 : 2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court. 22.1 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNSS’ for short). Sub-Section (3) of Section 175 of the BNSS reads as under: 175. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case: (1) *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under Sub-Section (4) of Section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned. (4) *** *** *** 23. Sub-Section (4) of Section 173 of the BNSS has provided that any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an Officer In-Charge of a Police Station to record the information referred to in Sub-Section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any Police Officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by the BNSS, and such Officer shall have all the powers of an Officer In-Charge of the Police Station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate. 24. Like Section 190, Cr.P.C. which provided for cognizance of offences by Magistrates, Section 210 of the BNSS has also provided for cognizance of offences by Magistrates. 24. Like Section 190, Cr.P.C. which provided for cognizance of offences by Magistrates, Section 210 of the BNSS has also provided for cognizance of offences by Magistrates. Both Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. had and Section 210(1) (b), BNSS has inter-alia empowered any Magistrate of the First Class to take cognizance of any offence upon a Police Report. The Magistrate faced with a Final Report, can apply his mind independently to the facts emerging from investigation and for that purpose, he can peruse the materials which were collected during the course of investigation, available in the case diary, and thereafter, can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. or under Section 210(1)(b), BNSS, as the case may be. When the Magistrate proceeds to take action by way of cognizance by disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at in the Police Report, he would be taking cognizance on the basis of the Police Report and not on any complaint/Protest Petition. 25. In the case in hand, though the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) had received the Protest Petition from the petitioner after receipt of the Final Report, he had after perusal of the materials in the concerned case diary, had decided to take action by way of cognizance after disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at in the Final Report by the Investigating Officer of Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022 and reaching a view that there were sufficient incriminating materials against the accused. Holding so, the learned Magistrate has already directed further investigation. The learned Magistrate has not therefore, taken cognizance on the Protest Petition and decided not to follow the procedure required for taking cognizance on a complaint. 26. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and Section 175(3), BNSS and the observations made in the decisions mentioned above, this Court is of the considered view that the power used to be exercised by the Magistrate earlier under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is also exercisable under Section 175(3), BNSS. This Court is also of the considered view that if the petitioner has any grievance as regards the manner in which the investigation is being carried out he can approach the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned under Section 175(3), BNSS and if he does so, the Magistrate can ensure, if prima facie satisfied, a proper investigation in the matter and he can also monitor the investigation. 27. 27. In view of such settled position of law, this Court while not entertaining the present writ petition, like to observe that the petitioner has the liberty to avail the remedy under Section 175(3), BNSS by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate and if the petitioner approaches the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3), BNSS, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied that a proper investigation in the matter is not being done, a proper investigation and if required, shall also monitor the investigation. It is further observed that if the jurisdictional Magistrate deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the concerned Superintendent of Police for change of the Investigating Officer so that a proper investigation is done. The petitioner is also at liberty to produce any supporting materials with regard to his claim that proper investigation is not being done in connection with Sorbhog Police Station Case no. 117/2022. 28. With the observations made above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 29. The Communication bearing no. DTO/BNGN/Court/2024/912 dated 08.11.2024 of the District Transport Officer (DTO), Bongaingaon, Assam - placed by Ms. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department - is kept as part of the case records.