JUDGMENT

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 4.12.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Badi, Dholpur whereby cognizance of offence under Section 406 IPC was taken against the petitioners and they were summoned to stand trial for offence under Section 406 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed a revision petition and the said revision petition was also dismissed.

2. Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the investigating agency had filed Final Report in negative form and thereafter, upon the protest petition preferred by the complainant, the trial Judge proceeded under Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded preliminary evidence of the complainant and his witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that it was incumbent for the court of Magistrate to give reasons to differ with the opinion of the investigating officer before taking cognizance of offence against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguments raised, has relied upon a judgment rendered by Single Judge of this Court in Pooran vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (1) RCC 485 and another judgment rendered by Single Judge of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Madan Lai & 2 Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2004 (1) RCC 266.

4. This Court has already noted the above contention in Shivcharan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SBCRLMP No. 4921/2018, decided on 20.8.2018. The judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shivcharan (supra) reads as under:-

"Present petition has been filed to assail the order dated 2.5.2017 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dausa, whereby it took cognizance for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. It is further prayed that the order dated 19.7.2018 passed by the revisional court below whereby the order of cognizance was affirmed, be also set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has relied upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Kanhaiyalal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1523 to contend that the court below while taking cognizance of offences has not given reasons to differ with the report of Investigating Officer.

Para-2 of the judgment in Kanhaiyalal & Anr. (supra) reads as under:-

"2. Assailing the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that before proceeding to take cognizance on the final report submitted by the Police, it was obligatory for the learned Magistrate to have given reasons as to why he was disagreeing with the reasons given in the final report. It has further been submitted that the learned Magistrate has simply made bald observation that he had considered the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but he has not touched the reasons given by the Investigating Agency before proceeding to take cognizance. The counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006(2) RCC 853."

The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not attracted on the facts of the case.

After investigation of FIR, if the investigating agency submits Final Report in negative form, the Magistrate has following four options:-

(a) . The Magistrate can accept the Final Report in negative form after issuing notice to the complainant and after affording opportunity of hearing to the complainant.

(b) . The Magistrate can take cognizance of offences on the Final Report submitted by the investigating agency.

(c) . The Magistrate can send the Final Report for further investigation.

(d) . The Magistrate can proceed under Chapter-XV of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate can also record statement of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

In the pres