IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36070 of 2007 RAM CHANDRA YADAV @ RAM CHARAN YADAV & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioners :Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav,Adv., For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, APP. 4. 5.5.2008. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 6.4.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Tarapur (Asarganj) P. S. Case No. 152 of 2001, G.R. No. 1789/2001 thereby court below proceeded with protest petition as complaint case and transferred it under Section 192 Cr.P.C. for enquiry without accepting the final form as well as the order dated 20.2.2006 passed by Sri S. K. Sanjay, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class taking cognizance in complaint case and also its revisional order dated 25.6.2007 passed by Sri Amar Nath Sahay, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Cri. Revision No. 44 of 2006. Heard learned counsel for the both parties. It appears that aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of one Shivan Yadav against these petitioners under Sections 364/34 I.P.C. However, police after investigation submitted final form showing the case as false. In the meantime, the informant/opposite party no. 2 filed a protest petition before the Court of C. J. M., Munger on 6..4.2005. Learned CJM after hearing the parties refused to accept the final form and registered the protest petition as complaint case and transferred the same for enquiry and disposal under Section 192 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, Sri S. K. Sanjay, - 2 - Judicial Magistrate after examination of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance vide order dated 20.2.2006. Aggrieved petitioners preferred revision which was also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned orders only on the ground that learned C.J.M. without accepting the final form submitted by the police cannot proceed with protest petition as complaint case and transferred it under Section 192 Cr.P.C. for enquiry. Therefore, order of cognizance passed on such a protest petition is also bad and illegal. It is well settled principle is that in case police submits final report, magistrate has three options:- (i) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding against the accused persons, (ii) he may reject the conclusion of the police and take cognizance on the basis of material available in the case-diary and issue process against them, (iii) he may accept the report and proceed with protest petition as complaint case by taking cognizance. In this case on filing of the final form by the police, learned magistrate has taken recourse of third option. He has treated the protest petition as complaint case and after institution he transferred the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 Cr.P.C. for enquiry and trial. Thereafter, judicial magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 20.2.2006. The only mistake committed by the court below is that in stead of accepting final form before proceeding on protest petition he has mentioned “not accepted”. However, it is of no consequence. It is only a - 3 - technical mistake. For all practical purposes, it is a step taken under third option available before the magistrate. Now cognizance has already been taken after recording evidence under Section 202 Cr.P.C. At this stage, it would not be proper to quash the proceeding or order mere on technicalities. Accordingly, this application is, hereby, rejected. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)