The Magistrate has the jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. on receipt of the final report and is not required to adopt the procedure of a complaint case. The notice to the complainant before accepting the final report is mandatory, and the practice of filing a protest petition against the final report is countenanced by the Supreme Court. The provisions contained in the proviso to Section 202, Cr. P. C. are not applicable when cognizance of the case is taken under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1255 of 2002, Yogendra v. Mahendra and others under Ss. 323, 307, 452 and 504, I. P. C. , P. S. Pahasu, district Bulandshahar pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khurja (Buland-shahar) and for setting aside the order dated 2-2-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 77 of 2001.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this application, briefly narrated, are that on 2-4-1998 Rakesh Kumar Sharma applicant No. 2 lodged a report against Yogendra opposite party No. 2 and three other persons under Sections 323, 504 and 427, I. P. C. with the allegations that on 1-4-1998 at about 6 p. m. while he was returning to his house from his duties and reached in front of house of Suresh Chandra, the accused of the said case namely Suresh Chandra, Pintoo and Yograj caused injuries on him with lathi Danda and also extended threats. During Marpit a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 which he was keeping in his pocket had fallen down and could not be traced. On the basis of above report a non-cognizable report under Sections 323, 504, 427, I. P. C. was written at P. S. Pahasu. Subsequently, the case was altered under Sections 308 and 325, I. P. C. and registered at crime No. 64 of 1998 on 28-4-1998 and was investigated. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Suresh Chandra and Devraj on 13-5-1998 and latter on supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Yogendra opposite party No. 2 and Pintoo on 14-6-1998.

( 3 ) ON 2-4-1998 the opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Superintendent of Police for registering as and against the applicants with the allegations that on 2-4-1998 when he was taking his food at his house at about 9 a. m. , the applicants armed with knife, sariya and lathi came to his house and started abusing him and on his objection caused injuries on him with knife, sariya and lathi. The Superintendent of Police ordered registration of case on the above application. Accordingly, an F. I. R. , was lodged and a case at crime No. 58 of 1998 under Sections 452, 307, 323, 504, I. P. C. was registered against the applicants on 13-4-1998. After investigation, the police submitted final report in the said case crime No. 58 of 1998.

( 4 ) ON the receipt of the final report, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainant opposite party No. 2, who filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate on considering the evidence collected during investigation and the protest petition, allowed the protest petition, rejected the final report and summoned the applicants for trial under Sections 307, 323, 452 and 504, I. P. C. vide order dated 8-1-1999.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the applicants moved protest petition under Section 204, Cr. P. C. for recalling the order dated 8-1-1999 on the ground that only two affidavits were filed from the side of complainant and witnesses and doctor were not examined. The learned Magistrate on considering the above application held that affidavit of only two witnesses were filed, the other witnesses and the doctor were not examined. The case was triable by Court of Sessions and therefore all the witnesses were to be examined. With these findings he allowed the above petition and recalled summoning order dated 8-1-1999, vide order dated 23-10-2000.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the above order dated 23-10-2000, the opposite party No. 2 filed Criminal Revision No. 77 of 2001. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, who decided the revision held that by order dated 8-1-1999 the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. rejecting the final report and therefore he was not required to adopt the procedure of complaint case, to examine all the witnesses of fact, as required by proviso to Section 202, Cr. P. C. and therefore, the learned Magi