Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State-respondent, and, perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 31.01.2001 passed by Sri Laxmi Narain, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrauni, District Lalitpur rejecting Final Report in Case No. 42 of 2000, under Sections 352, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Mahrauni, District Lalitpur.

3. The facts in brief, as borne out from record, are that, on 31.03.2000, applicant-respondent no. 2 filed an application in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrauni, District Lalitpur with the allegation that on 26.03.2000, at about 4.00 P.M., accused-revisionists damaged her crop through their cattle grazing. When applicant and her husband protested, revisionists tried to kill them. Thereafter, applicant-respondent no. 2 moved an application dated 31.03.2000 under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") in the Court below whereupon learned Magistrate directed Police to register First Information Report vide order dated 31.03.2000.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, First Information Report was registered being Case Crime No. C-9/2000, under Sections 352, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act at Police Station Mahrauni, District Lalitpur. Investigation was entrusted to Circle Officer, Mahrauni who, after investigation took a view that complaint is not correct, submitted final report. It is this Final Report, which has not been accepted by learned Magistrate and accused-revisionists have been summoned to face trial.

5. It is contended that along with Protest Petition filed by complainant against Final Report, submitted by Investigating Officer, some affidavits were filed which have been considered by Magistrate and thereafter final report has been rejected. The argument is that no external evidence can be seen by Magistrate for accepting or rejecting final report. Reliance is placed on Pakhando and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2001 (43) ACC 1096 and Harkesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2001 (43) ACC 720.

6. Learned A.G.A., on the contrary, submitted that it is open to Magistrate to accept or not, final report submitted by Police, and Magistrate can examine the matter himself. If it finds expedient on the basis of material available, can summon the accused. He said that in the present case, Magistrate has recorded his opinion on the basis of affidavits placed before him along with Protest Petition by complainant, and, therefore, it cannot be said that Magistrate has not applied his mind. He also contended that there is no bar for Magistrate to consider material placed before him by complainant along with Protest Petition.

7. I have heard learned learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

8. Chapter XIV, Cr.P.C. deals with conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings and also the powers of cognizance of a Magistrate. Section 190, relevant for our purpose, is reproduced as under:

"190. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try."

9. Chapter XV, thereafter has four Sections, i.e., Section 200 to 203, which deal with complaint to Magistrate. Chapter XVI deals with commencement of proceedings before