The main legal point established is the requirement for the magistrate to provide reasons for accepting a negative final report or dismissing a protest petition, and the need for further inquiry into specific offences.

R.S. Chauhan, J.- The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.06.2000 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur whereby cognizance under Sections 420, 408 and 381 IPC has been taken against the non-petitioner No. 1, Khem Raj and non-petitioner No. 2, Nemichand. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that no cognizance has been taken for offence under Section 448 IPC against the non-petitioners by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this miscellaneous petition before us.

2. The petitioner is a power of attorney holder and Manager of complainant firm M/s. Chemical Industrial Distributors, Jodhpur. The said firm had rented out the first floor comprising of three rooms, one kitchen, toilet bathroom and varandah in house No. H-14 situated in Jodhpur. The said premises were used by the firm for providing residential accommodation to the employees who were posted from time to time at Jodhpur. At the relevant time, the said premises were given to non-petitioner No. 1 Khem Raj, who was working for the said firm. On 22.01.1998, Khem Raj informed his employers that when he reached Jodhpur from Pali, he discovered that the locks of the said premises were broken. He, therefore, requested the employers to rush immediately to Jodhpur. Upon reaching Jodhpur, the petitioner Babu Lal, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur for offence under Section 448 IPC. On 23.01.1998, the premises were inspected by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner also submitted a list of articles and goods, which were stolen from the said premises. In the presence of the I.O., the petitioner placed the locks of the firm and handed over the keys to the non-petitioner No. 1 Khem Raj and went back to Pali. However, just two days later on 24.01.1998 when the petitioner came back to Jodhpur, he discovered to his shock and dismay that Khem Raj was absent and there was a different lock on the premises. When he contacted the Police Station, the Sub Inspector and the Circle Officer informed that Khem Raj had handed over the possession of premises to non-petitioner No. 2 Nemichand. They also showed him the written document. The petitioner immediately requested the police to register a FIR against the non-petitioner No. 1 and No. 2. However, the police refused to register any case. The petitioner also contacted the Superintendent of police. Even then, no action was taken by the police. Therefore, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate. Meanwhile, the police submitted a negative final report in the earlier FIR registered on 22.01.1998. The order dated 30.06.2000 is a common order dealing with both, the negative final report and the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner. While, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 as stated above, but he has also accepted the negative final report filed by the police.

3. Mr. Sajjan Singh, the Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, according to him, the statement of Babu Lal and Satya Narain, PW. 2 prima facie made out an offence under Section 448 IPC. But, despite the evidence being available on record, the learned Magistrate has not taken any cognizance for offence under Section 448 IPC. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has accepted the negative final report submitted by the police without stating any reason for such acceptance. Since, a protest petition had been filed against the negative final report, according to Mr. Sajjan Singh, the learned Magistrate should have given reasons for accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition. Therefore, as far as the acceptance of final report is concerned , the impugned order is a non-speaking one.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has contended that taking of cognizance is completely discretionary matter with the learned Magistrate. According to him, the ingredients of