J. Narain, J. This application in revision is directed against the order dated the 5th November, 1973 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, by which he has taken cognizance of the offences under different sections of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others. 2. Of the occurrence that took place on the 25th of September, 1971 a first information report was laid on the same date against the petitioner and others under sections 147, 448 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of police investigation a protest petition was filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate. After investigation the police submitted final report Civil dispute under section 448/380 of the Indian Penal Code. The supervision note as also the case diary was called for and on perusal of these materials and the protest petition the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 23rd of October, 1972 passed the following order, "Final report-Civil dispute under sections 147/448/380 I.P.C. submitted by the I.O. is accepted and the protest petition filed by the informant is dismissed as there is no merit in it. " On the Ist of April, 1973, however, the police under the orders of the Superintendent of Police submitted chargesheet under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. On hearing the parties the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order taking cognizance under sections 147, 448, 380, 426, 323 and 441 of the Indian Penal Code. In doing so he relied upon an unreported decision of this court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 183 of 1970 (Rama Kant Singh Vs. State of Bihar). It is against the above order that the present application in revision is directed. 3. It has been argued that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate having accepted the final report of the police, has no jurisdiction to reopen the matter and issue processes against the petitioner and others. There is substance in this contention. The chargesheet will show that no fresh materials were brought before the police for submitting the chargesheet when a final report in the case had already been submitted. All that it says is that chargesheet is being submitted since the Superintendent of police was pleased to order for doing so. There is substance in this contention. The chargesheet will show that no fresh materials were brought before the police for submitting the chargesheet when a final report in the case had already been submitted. All that it says is that chargesheet is being submitted since the Superintendent of police was pleased to order for doing so. It is not necessary for me to make comments on the action of the police and I shall confine myself only to the question how far the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate can be sustained in law. I have already reproduced the kind of order that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate had passed on the 23rd of October, 1972 accepting the final report. That having been done the point for consideration is whether he could review or revise his order as he, by the impugned order, has done. In my opinion, he could not do so since the order dated the 23rd of October, 1972, was a final order and to use the expression of their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarni Charan Choudhari (I.L.R. 20 Calcutta 867) had the effect of "destroying the proceeding. 4. The view that I have taken above is borne out by a decision of this Court also. In Gajo Chaudhary Vs. Devi Chaudhary and another AIR 1923 Pat. 532 the Magistrate on the 3rd of February, 1923 had recorded the order-Final report received. Enter false, mistake of law, Sections 379/109, 447/109 I.P.C. Subsequently on a petition filed the Magistrate on the 3rd of February, 1923 issued notice to the bailors to produce the accused persons. On these facts it was held that: "Under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to alter or review that order and the order of the 3rd February, 1923 must in this view of the case be held to be illegal." It will be noticed that the present is a stronger case. Here the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has recorded that he accepted the final report but in Gajo Chaudhary's case there was no such entry by the Magistrate. 5. Now as to the decision relied upon by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate. it seems to me that the decision of the High court was not correctly understood by him. Here the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has recorded that he accepted the final report but in Gajo Chaudhary's case there was no such entry by the Magistrate. 5. Now as to the decision relied upon by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate. it seems to me that the decision of the High court was not correctly understood by him. The High Court judgment clearly says that "final report did not reach the Magistrate with the result that no order had been passed by him on the final report." This clearly means that no judicial order had been passed by the Magistrate accepting or not accepting the final report submitted by the police. The present is not such a case. In the present case the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate did apply his mind and accepted the final report. 6. There are a large number of decisions on the question as to what is a final order. The earliest on the point will be found in Bossom Vs. Altrincham Urban Council 1903 (I) KBD 547 in which Lord Alverstone C.J. held. "It seems to me that the real test for determining this question ought to be this: does judgment or order as may, finally dispose of the rights of the parties? If it does, then I think it ought to be treated as a final order but if it does not, it is in my opinion, an interlocutory order." Other cases have been referred to in a Division Bench decision of this Court in Atal Bihari Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar 1972 BLJR 181 and it has been held there that. * "If the order is a final order the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review or recall it." Having accepted the final report submitted by the police the order recorded by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate must be held to be a final order and that being so, he had no jurisdiction to review it or revise it which he did by subsequently taking cognizance. 7. In the result the order dated the 5th November, 1973 is quashed and the application is allowed. Application allowed.