Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.

2. The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.418 of 2013, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., P.S.Muradnagar, District-Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-6 Ghaziabad. Prayer has also been made to quash the summoning order dated 15.4.2015, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-6, Ghaziabad as well as the Non Bailable Warrants issued against the applicant on 17.8.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is a bank employee who has been falsely implicated in this case. The police after investigation had submitted final report in the matter, against which protest petition was filed by O.P. No.2/complainant. The learned Magistrate, rejected the final report and while allowing the protest petition by the impugned order dated 15.4.2015 summoned the applicant, without following the proper procedure.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the learned Magistrate, before issuing summons against the applicant, was obliged to follow the procedure as laid down in Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. and it was only after recording the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., that he could have summoned the accused/applicant. Whereas, in the present case, the learned Magistrate, directly took cognizance on the protest petition and issued the summons without recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application, contending that there is no illegality in the impugned summoning order passed by the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him.

6. Considered the rival submissions.

7. The law regarding the issue involved in this application is well settled.

"If in any case the final report is submitted by the police, against which protest petition is filed by first informant then magistrate has following three options:-

1-He may accept the final report and drop the proceedings, or

2-He may direct the police for further investigation, or

3-He may summon the accused on further two grounds:-

(A) If he chooses to summon the accused on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigation officer, he may do so directly without any further evidence. or (B) If accused is summoned on the basis of protest petition, relying on extraneous material filed with protest petition, then he has to follow the procedure laid down under chapter XV of Cr. P.C. i.e. to treat the protest petition as complaint and record the evidence u/s 200 and 202 Cr P.C. and cognizance cannot be taken on the basis of extraneous material u/s 190 (1)(b) Cr .P.C, without following the aforesaid procedure."

8. A Full Bench of this court in the case of Ranjeet Singh & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2000(1) JIC 399, after discussing in detail, various case laws, has observed that after concluding the investigation, if final report is filed by the police, the three options open before the Magistrate are (1) He may accept the report and drop the proceeding, or (2) He may disagree with the report and take the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (3) He may direct further investigation to be made by the Police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.

9. Section 190 of Cr.P.C. provides for the law relating to cognizance of offence by the Magistrate, according to which the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence under the following three situations:-

(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