1. ' ALTAF HUSSAIN, J.--- Through this petition for leave to appeal the appellant has called in question the orders, dated 29-5-2006, 25-7-2006 and 29-5-2007 respectively passed by learned Magistrate 1st Class Punial/Ishkoman and the learned Chief Court and to direct Magistrate 1st Class Punial/Ishkoman to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.
2. ' Briefly the facts leading to the background of the case are that the case under sections 427/447/147, P.P.C. Was registered against the accused/respondents at Police Station Chatorkand on the report of the appellant. The police after due investigation of the case had submitted the challan of the case in the Court of Magistrate 1st Clas Punial/Ishkoman. The learned Magistrate 1st Class taking cognizance of the offences issued notices to the accused for appearance in the Court on 1-6-2006. The notices were issued on 11-5-2006.
3. ' On 29-5-2006 the S.D.P.O. Punjial/Ishkoman filed an application before the learned trial Court seeking the withdrawal of the challan for reinvestigation. The learned Magistrate 1st Class returned the challan of the case to the police.
4. ' The appellant challenged the order of the learned Magistrate 1st Class, dated 29-5-2006 before the Chief Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. During the pendency of this petition the police submitted an application before the trial Court for cancellation of the case. The learned Magistrate 1st Class recorded the word "Agreed" on the back of the application submitted to it.
5. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record produced by the learned Advocate-General. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that after taking cognizance of the case the learned trial Court was not legally authorized to return the challan of the case to the police for reinvestigation.
6. ' The learned Advocate-General fully supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. ' The learned counsel for the accused/respondents defending the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Chief Court inter alia contended that from the plain reading of the F.I.R. It transpires that no offence has been committed by the accused.
8. We have considered the matter carefully. We find ourselves persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as there is no provision of law that once challan has been submitted and cognizance taken thereof by a Court, the same cannot be returned to the police for reinvestigation. However, an Investigating Officer may reinvestigate the case on his own motion or on the orders of his superior officers and submit a second report in supersession of his earlier report.
9. ' Once a Court takes cognizance of an offence it becomes the duty of the Court to proceed according to law. If the Court considers that the charge is groundless or there is no possibility of the accused being convicted of any offence he may acquit him even before framing of a charge.
10. ' The learned trial Court while agreeing with the second police report for cancellation of the case had not advanced any reasons, he has simply recorded the word "Agreed" on the application submitted by police. The trial Court has to record his reasons for agreeing with the police report for cancellation of the case.
11. ' For the aforementioned reasons this petition for leave to appeal is accepted by converting it into appeal. The orders, dated 29-5-2006 and 25-7-2006 passed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class Punial/ Ishkoman whereby, he permitted the Investigation Officer to withdraw the challan and subsequently cancelled the case are declared to be of no legal effect, the impugned judgment/order of the Chief Court is also set aside.
12. ' The original challan of the case shall be deemed to be pending before the trial Court who shall proceed according to law.
13. ' Leave granted. . Case remanded to the trial Court.