(2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129 that further investigation cannot be ordered under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code at the behest of the defacto complainant. Regarding that legal proposition also, there can be no doubt. But, at the same time, while considering the protest petition filed as against the negative final report, the learned Magistrate, as per settled law, has got three options, i.e., either to accept the negative report, or to take cognizance of the offences based on the available materials, or to order for further investigation. Ordering further investigation on the protest petition filed by the defacto complainant will be within his jurisdiction. The Magistrate may also treat the protest petition as a private complaint and proceed further. At any rate, when a protest petition is filed by the defacto complainant as against the negative final report, the Magistrate should meticulously go through the records and pass a detailed speaking order. Even for an administrative order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that a non-speaking order is not an order in the eye of law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. When that is the position for even an administrative order, it is needless to say that a judicial order should be a speaking order, because the Judge can not speak, but the judgment should speak. In the case on hand, the impugned order does not reflect the application of mind of the learned Magistrate, as it is evident that he has not given any reason for passing the impugned order. For these
