IMPORTANT POINT
The acceptance of a final report does not prevent a Magistrate from taking cognizance of a complaint based on a protest petition if supported by sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, in Complaint Case No. C.A. 84 of 2015, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Section s 448 , 323, 379, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and summoned the petitioners to face trial for the said offences. The aforesaid order taking cognizance is under challenge in the present quashing application.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners:-

3. Mr. Jibendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in the eye of law, being contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Surendra Pandit @ Soren Pandit & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42389 of 2012. The relevant paragraph, upon which reliance has been placed, is reproduced hereinbelow:

"As properly advised, the 2^nd respondent filed a protest petition. The concerned Court could have weighed the pros and cons of the final report, on the one hand, and the protest petition, on the other hand, and taken a decision in this behalf. Even from perusal of the order challenged in this petition, it is evident that the trial Court accepted the final report, despite there being a protest petition. It only means that protest petition was not found to be acceptable.

Once the final report was accepted, the proceeding referable to the FIR stand terminated. If the second respondent was aggrieved on account of the acceptance of the final report filed by the police, he ought to have approached this Court by instituting appropriate proceedings. However, on his insistence, the protest petition was treated as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Whatever be the possibility for the protest petition being treated as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., once the final report has been accepted, the question of keeping the matter alive through a different channel does not arise."

3.1. While referring to the aforesaid paragraph of the cited judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and Opposite Party No. 2 during the relevant period. It has further been contended that Opposite Party No. 2 had initially lodged Katihar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2014 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 452, 379, 504/34 of the IPC and Sections 24 and 25 of the Arms Act. The said case was investigated, and upon completion of investigation, the police submitted a final form concluding that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and, accordingly, the petitioners were not sent up for trial. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate accepted the final form despite the filing of a protest petition. In view of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Surendra Pandit (supra) the said protest petition ought to be deemed as having been not accepted; however, the learned Magistrate proceeded further on said protest petition and, after examining the inquiry witnesses, took cognizance of the alleged offences by passing the impugned order.

3.2. It has been further submitted that, in fact, there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. All the witnesses cited i