A Magistrate who orders an investigation under section 156(3) CrPC and receives a final report from the police under section 173 CrPC may thereafter do one of three things: (1) decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) take cognizance of the offense under section 190(1)(b) CrPC on the basis of the police report and issue process; or (3) take cognizance of the offense under section 190(1)(a) CrPC on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under section 200 CrPC.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against the order dated August 29, 1980 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. C/1918 of 1980, under sections 380/341/504/506 I. P. C. discharging the accused opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3.

( 2 ) THE complainant petitioner filed a petition on 23. 7. 80 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging that since 1977 the petitioner was running a betel shop at 29/a, Chandni Chowk Street, Calcutta and took the said shop by executing a deed of agreement along with his brother-in-law S. A. Wahid on November 25, 1979 and the said Wahid had taken the shop from Md. Osman. The petitioner and his younger brother had been running the shop and had the licence in petitioners name. The petitioner left for Patna to appear before the Bihar Public Service Commission and his younger brother was looking after the business. On 3. 5. 80 the petitioner's younger brother also went to Patna for his treatment and he kept the key of the shop with the servant Sharfu. In the meantime the accused opposite party No. 1 snatched away the key from the possession of the servant. The petitioner returned on 18. 6. 80 and he came to know of the fact. The accused persons refused to hand over the key to the petitioner in spite of demand. The accused persons abused the petitioner in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences if any attempted was made to open the shop. The petitioner filed a written complaint against the accused persons and lodged a general diary at the thana on 19. 6. 80. On 20. 6. 80 the petitioner complained before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Division and on his direction K. D. Tewari and Ramchandra Singh went to the post but no action was taken against the accused. The petitioner made several attempted but when no legal action was taken against the accused persons the petitioner went to the Police Commissioner, Calcutta and lodged a written complaint. The petitioner also prayed that the learned Magistrate would be pleased to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Detective Department, Lal Bazar to take cognizance under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ).

( 3 ) ON receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate perused the same and sent the petition to the Deputy Commissioner, Detective Department for causing investigation to be made under section 156 (3) of the Code fixing 10. 9. 80 for report. In the meantime on 4. 8. 80 the accused opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 made a prayer before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court Calcutta for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code in the event of their arrest in connection with Case No. C/1918/80.

( 4 ) THE learned Chief Judge by the order dated 4. 8. 80 granted them bail on certain conditions. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and n surrendered before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 18. 8. 80. The learned Magistrate by order dated 18. 8. 80 called for the F. I. R. fixing 29. 8. 80. On 18. 8. 80 opposite party No. 2 also filed an application before the learned Magistrate for relaxation of the condition of the bail bond as he was going to Haj Pilgrimage from 4. 9. 80. The learned Magistrate fixed the application for hearing on 29. 8. 80. On that date a report was received from the Investigating Officer with the original petition of complaint. In the report the Investigating Officer stated that the petitioner failed to produce any document showing his bona fide possession of the shop room in his favour nor could he produce any witness. The Investigating Officer further stated that the opposite party No. 1 was a direct tenant under the landlady in respect of the hotel and the shop room. In the further report it was stated that a suit being Suit No. 1283 of 1980 was pending before the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the petitioner and others over the right of the shop in question. The learned Magistrate recorded tha