Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 15.1.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Badaun in Miscellaneous Case No. 1566 of 2013 (Dhanpal v. Dharamveer and others), P.S. Civil Lines, District Budaun, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the final report submitted by police and summoned the revisionists to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC.

3. Brief facts giving rise to instant criminal revision are that initially an FIR was lodged on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the revisionist No. 1 and others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC vide Case Crime No. 231 A of 2013 (State v. Dharamveer), P.S. Civil Lines, upon which investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and after concluding the investigation, the Investigation Officer submitted the final report in the matter on 12.5.2013.

4. Aggrieved by the said final report, opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition, whereupon learned Magistrate vide order dated 2.9.2013 directed the Investigating Officer of the case to conduct further investigation. Pursuant to the said direction, the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and again submitted the final report in the matter on 2.10.2013. It is stated that in the meantime, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint on 11.6.2013 before the concerned Court against the revisionists, whereupon both the cases were directed to be clubbed together and learned Magistrate after recording the statement of complainant and his witnesses under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. in the complaint case summoned the revisionists to face the trial for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and directed the matter to run as a state case, vide its order dated 15.1.2014. It is this order, which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 15.1.2014 discloses that a strange procedure was adopted by learned Magistrate at the time of summoning of revisionists. The order discloses that the cognizance was taken into Section 190 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of protest petition filed against the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. But this cognizance was taken relying upon the statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the material supplied in simultaneous complaint case.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA argued that in view of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. learned Magistrate was well within its right to adopt the particular procedure. It is apparent that once the final report is submitted the Magistrate has several course open viz

“1. He may agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But before doing so, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or

2. He may take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) and issue process straight way to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed; or

3. He may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner;or

4. He may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.

7. The aforesaid position of law has been elucidated in Pakhando and others v. State