JUDGMENT C.P. Sinha, J. This application under section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 on behalf of the five accused persons is to quash the Magistrate's order dated 10.8.1972 (wrongly typed as 10.7.1972 in this application) under which he has taken cognizance for the offence under section 436/109 of the Indian Penal Code against them. Of the petitioners, nos. 2 to 4 are said to be Labourers under no 1, No, 5 is the brother of the complainant (opposite party). 2. On 2.4.1972 at noon this complainant submitted his written report at the police station alleging that that morning at about 4 A.M. Motilal Bawri, Pulin Tudu and Kala Hasho (petitioners 2 to 4) had under the orders of Nilu Tiwary (petitioner no. 1) had set fire to his thatched house and as a result thereof, it got completely burnt putting him to a loss of about Rs. 500/-. It was also alleged therein that on the previous day, Nilu Tiwary had at the instance of accused Mahadeo Mandal, with whom the complainant was litigating, held a meeting in which he had called upon complainant to share the fruits of the Mahua trees with others and his being not agreeable to it he held out threats that they would be looted away and shared by all. It was for this reason that Nilu Tiwary had instigated these labourers of his to do that mischief to his house. A copy of this first information report along with the written report is annexure-1 to this application. 3. On the lodging of the above first information report, the police instituted a case under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code against all the five accused persons and took up investigation, On the basis of a copy of the first information report having been forwarded to the court of the Magistrate a G. R. case under section 436, Indian Penal Code was registered against them and it was ordered to be put up after final form was submitted by the police in the case. On 19.5.1972, the complainant filed a petition before the Magistrate complaining about police apathy in taking appropriate action against the accused in that case. On 19.5.1972, the complainant filed a petition before the Magistrate complaining about police apathy in taking appropriate action against the accused in that case. He alleged therein that the accused persons had not till then been apprehended by the police and were moving freely in the village threatening him with dire consequences creating an impression that they had gained over the police. He also requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to direct the police to apprehend the accused persons and also to investigate into the case in right earnest. On that petition of the complainant the Magistrate ordered its copy to be sent to the Police Inspector and also directed the police to submit the final form in the case by 6.4.1972. The final form did not, however, come till 26.7.1972 on which date the Magistrate directed the police to be reminded by about it and next date fixed in the case was 24.8.1972. In the meanwhile on that very day, i.e. 26.7.1972 the complainant filed a complaint petition in the court of the Subdivisional Magistrate making accusations of the aforesaid nature against them. In this complaint, he also made accusation against the police of sitting over the case which he had already lodged with them and which on the first information report has been registered as Nala P. S. case no. 1(4)72 under section 436, Indian Penal Code. He further gave out that as he had reliably learnt, the police have decided to submit a final report in the case because of their partisan attitude towards the accused perS0ns and that is why he was filing this regular complaint. 4. On receipt of the above complaint dated 26.7.1972, the Subdivisional Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and referred the complaint to another Magistrate for enquiry and report by 10.8.1972. During the enquiry before him, the complaint examined 5 witnesses to support his allegations made in the complaint petition. On an examination of those evidence, the Enquiry Magistrate submitted a report to the Subdivisional Magistrate saying that the accused should be summoned to face trial as a prima facie case had been made out against them. After perusal of this enquiry report, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order dated 10.8.1972, took cognizance in the case under section 436/109 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and transferred it to another Magistrate for disposal. After perusal of this enquiry report, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order dated 10.8.1972, took cognizance in the case under section 436/109 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and transferred it to another Magistrate for disposal. As already observed, it is this order which is the subject of challenge in this application. 5. Mr. Laxmi Narain Mishra appearing for the petitioners has urged that the cognizance so taken by the Magistrate is wholly illegal in as much as at that time the police investigation into the case as earlier instituted at the instance of this complainant was pending and it was not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance on any such complaint filed by the complainant before him. According, to him the Magistrate was bound to wait for the final form from the police for which he had actually reminded the police on 26.7.1972 on which date this complaint was presented. The Magistrate's action in examining the complainant on solemn affirmation on that complaint and referring the matter for judicial enquiry at that time was quite illegal and abuse of the process of the court in as much as by his such action, he created another enquiry into the same allegation through a Magistrate because the police was already in seisin of the matter and enquiring into it. On these facts, he has strongly urged for the quashing of the impugned cognizance for the ends of justice, specially when the police in the final report as submitted by them, had held the case to be false and recommended for complanant's prosecution under section 182/211, Indian Penal Code. For this proposition, he has relied upon my decision in The State of Bihar vs. Sudhir Kumar Mandal and another, 1971 P.L.J.R. 367. 6. After having heard learned counsel of the two sides and also looked into the relevant facts, I am inclined to think that it is not a fit case in which the quashing sought for is warranted. As it appears from the record, though information was lodged with the police on 2.4.1972, but they did not see their way to submit the final form till 26.7.1972 awaiting while the case was postponed on some dates. Even the reminder for the final form, as per Magistrate's order dated 26.7.1972, did not have the desired in extracting the final form from them immediately thereafter. Even the reminder for the final form, as per Magistrate's order dated 26.7.1972, did not have the desired in extracting the final form from them immediately thereafter. The final report of the police, as submitted in the case, characterise the case to be false and recommending for action under section 182/211, Indian Penal Code against the complaint came before the Magistrate, for the first time, on 24.8.1972, and, as it appears, he simply accepted that final report. Prior to that, however, he had already acted on the complaint and taken cognizance in the case on 10. 8. 1972 after getting the matter enquired into by a Magistrate, who, on the evidence produced before him, held that prima facie case had been made out against the accused and they deserved to be put on trial. 7. The Magistrate's power to take cognizance in the case on the complaint filed by the complainant even on submission of the final report by the police in the case instituted with them by the first information report is not disputed. In such a situation, the fact that the police had submitted such a final report in the case holding it to be false could not create any illegality in that cognizance on the basis of the complaint. Moreover, at the time he took that cognizance there was no such final form by the police and it was still awaited. 8. The argument of Mr. Mishra that the Magistrate's action taking cognizance in the case in his impugned order dated 10.8.1972 obviosuly amounted to his clear interference with the police investigation which had been going on, though he had absolutely no right to do so because the investigation into the case was the exclusive domain of the police with which the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere, cannot be said to be quite sound in the context of the facts. There is nothing in the order sheet to show that Magistrate had in any way tried to interfere with that investigation calling upon the police not to go with it further or to do it in a particular way. In fact, the Magistrate had been adjourning the case from date to date awaiting the receipt of their final form which was not forthcoming quickly. In fact, the Magistrate had been adjourning the case from date to date awaiting the receipt of their final form which was not forthcoming quickly. In such a circumstance, if in the meantime the complainant came out with a regular complaint constituting the offence and also complaining about the police being in league with the accused persons likely to submit a final report in the case, the Magistrate could not be accused of having transgressed his jurisdiction in examining the complainant on that basis and getting the prima facie, truth or otherwise of the allegations enquired into by a Magistrate to decide whether he should take cognizance in the case or not. 9. On the facts of this case as referred to above, I do not think, my above decision1 can be availed of by the petitioners to get this cognizance struck down. In that case, on the basis of the first information report lodged with the police a case under section 379, Indian Penal Code was instituted and investigation taken up. During the investigation, the two suspects were arrested after incriminating articles had been recovered from their possession and forwarded to the Magistrate, who granted them bail on 19.1.1970. On 22.1.1970, the investigation of the case was still proceeding. Those two accused filed a petition before the Subdivisional Magistrate requesting him to stop the investigation and discharge them. Even though the state objected to the Magistrate's doing so, he in his order dated 19.2.1970, cancelled the first information report, stopped the investigation and discharged the accused. In the revision by the State to this Court against the Magistrate's Order dated 19.2.1970, I quashed it and in doing so, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court cases in State of West Bengal V. S. N. Basu, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 447 and S. N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwary and others, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 736. In the case at hand, there is no question of the Magistrate having stopped or cancelled the investigation. Here, the question is regarding illegality or otherwise of the Magistrate's taking cognizance in the case on the basis of the complaint petition during the pendency of the police investigation and the submission of the final form having been delayed considerably without any valid ostensible reason. 10. Here, the question is regarding illegality or otherwise of the Magistrate's taking cognizance in the case on the basis of the complaint petition during the pendency of the police investigation and the submission of the final form having been delayed considerably without any valid ostensible reason. 10. In view of the above discussions, the petitioners would seem to have failed to make out any good case for this Court's interference with the impugned cognizance. Accordingly, this application appears to be without substance. It, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Application dismissed.