A Magistrate's power to take cognizance of offences based on a protest petition under Section 190(1) of the CrPC is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed for complaint cases under Chapter XV of the CrPC, including the examination of the complainant and witnesses, to ensure the protection of the accused's rights.

( 1 ) THE main controversy involved in this revision centres round the scope of powers of the Magistrate under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code on a protest petition, duly supported by the affidavits of the witnesses.

( 2 ) THE present revision is directed against the order dated 8-9-93 passed by the IX A. C. J. M. , Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 869 of 1993 where by the final report submitted by the investigating Officer was rejected and the cognizance has been taken against the accused applicants by summoning them under Ss. 147, 148, 149 and 307, I. P. C.

( 3 ) IN short, the prosecution story as revealed by F. I. R. , is that at about 7. 008. 00 p. m. on 20-4-93, Om Shankar Pandey, the informant, his brother Arvind Kumar, and one Om Prakash were returning from village Baghbana to Allahabad on a motor cycle. In the way, they met the 6 accused applicants, who were carrying with them guns and bombs. Accused Satendra Kumar fired a shot from his gun while the other accused hurled bombs on the complaint party but luckily they escaped and ran away from the place of occurrence leaving the motor cycle there. The complaint party lodged F. I. R. of that incident at Police Station Ghoorpur, Allahabad, on the same night, i. e. , 20-4-93. The matter was investigated and police submitted a final report in the court. The complaint filed protest petition along with the affidavits of Om Prakash, Arvind Kumar and Om Shanker Pandey alleging that the final report be rejected and the accused be summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I. P. C. It has also been averred in those affidavits that even prior to the submission of the final report the Investigating Officer was siding with the accused persons and the complaint party had apprehension that he would not take any action against them on the basis of the F. I. R. The IXth Addl. C. J. M. , Allahabad has not accepted the final report and has summoned the accused applicants taking cognizance under sec. 190 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. by order dated 8-9-93 on the basis of the protest petition, supported by the affidavits of the witnesses.

( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants contended that the learned Magistrate has committed an error on the face of record in taking cognizance of the offences only on the basis of the protest petition and the affidavits filed in support thereof. No doubt the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance on the basis of the police report after rejecting the opinion of the Investigating Officer that no prima facie case is made out in case the material collected and statements of witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. disclosed the commission of offence and he can also ignore protest petition and summon the accused persons but he is also competent to take cognizance on the basis of protest petition provided he examines the complainant and his witnesses under Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. as provided in Chapter XV of the Criminal P. C. After compliance of the provisions of Ss. 200 and 202 of the Criminal P. C. , the Magistrate is empowered to issue process under S. 204, Cr. P. C. , if he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons.

( 6 ) THE sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant was S. 190, Cr. P. C. and on its strength he argued that the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance on the basis of protest petition under cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 190 of the Criminal P. C. and he rightly summoned accused persons straightway and he was not required to follow the procedure laid down u / Ss. 200 and 202 of the Criminal P. C. on the anology that the provisions of Chapter XIV which includes the provisions of S. 190, Cr. P. C. are independent and they are not subject to the procedure laid down in the Chapter XV which relates to the cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate under S