Ultimately, it is for Court to decide on the basis of evidence produced with the final report whether to take cognizance or not.

1. This revision is preferred against orders dated 21-11-2012 in Crime No.66/2009 on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad questioning taking of cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 474, 420 & 477 read with 34 IPC.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-

Second respondent herein (herein after referred to as complainant) filed a private complaint before XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 18-03-2009 and the same was referred to S.H.O., Habeeb Nagar under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C on the basis of which, police registered Crime No.66/2009 for offences under Sections 406, 474, 420, 477, 506 read with 120B IPC on 21-0-3-2009, and after investigation, Inspector of Police, Habeeb Nagar filed charge sheet against three accused persons reserving right to file charge sheet against remaining accused i.e., A4 to A10, after verification of the documents and other materials to file charge sheet against them separately. That charge sheet was returned by the learned Magistrate with some objections but inspector of police without submitting the returned charge sheet after complying the objection, filed final report on 20-07-2011 referring the case as that of civil nature, after issuing necessary notice to the complainant. On that complainant, filed protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.2897/2011 and raised objection on the final report dated 20-07-2011. On receipt of said protest petition, trial Court directed police to file the charge sheet that was returned on 26-08-2009 with objections and that police only filed xerox copies of the charge sheet stating that original is not traced. Thereafter, learned Magistrate conducted enquiry and recorded sworn statements of complainant and his witnesses and on a consideration of the same, took cognizance against revision petitioners herein and another for offences under Sections 406, 474, 420 and 477 read with 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision is preferred.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The main contention of the revision petitioners is that relationship between parties is purely that of a co-owners of a joint property and a civil suit is already pending between them, which was filed by the complainant himself and the investigating officer rightly filed final report referring the matter as that of civil nature, but the Court below without considering the same, entertained protest petition and issued summons. Learned Advocate submitted that XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erroneously exercised jurisdiction and committed wrong in not accepting final report dated 22-06-2011 which resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. He further submitted that learned Magistrate ought to have considered that the complainant did not make any of the petitioners as parties to the protest petition filed for the final report dated 22-06-2011 and without hearing the revision petitioners herein took cognizance, thereby committed grave irregularity. He further submitted that all the allegations referred in the complaint have to be considered only in the civil suit which is pending before the civil Court and there is absolutely no material attracting ingredients of any of the offences for which cognizance is taken.

5. On the other hand, Advocate for complainant submitted that trial Court rightly took cognizance of the offence and there is no procedure of issuing notice to accused on the protest petition before taking cognizance and the order of the learned Magistrate is a well considered order. He further submitted contention of the revision petitioners that lower Court committed illegality by not accepting the final report of the investigating officer is absolutely untenable, because it is for the Court to decide whether final report has to be accepted or not to be accepted, basing on the material. He submitted in this case when the investigating officer has filed a charge sheet against the revision petitione