JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Merta dated 7, 1931, by which, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 457, 380, 382, 323, and 142, IPC, and issued process against them. Notice was issued to the non-petitioner at the admission stage. Mr. B.R. Arora has put in appearance on behalf of the non-petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no material before the court to take cognizance against the petitioners and issuing process against them is misuse of the powers of the court. Learned counsel also contended that the petitioners have compensated the complain-ant and a receipt to that effect has been issued by the non-petitioner for any loss even if caused to him. Learned counsel showed the photo-state copy of the receipt. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contested the genuineness of the receipt and submitted that in civil proceedings initiated by non-petitioner against one Satya Narayan, injunction was issued restraining him to disturb the peaceful possession of the non-petitioner. That matter has come to the High Court. The, finding of the District Judge was that the appellants had forcibly taken over possession of the shop in dispute and unlawfully demolished the structures and thereby wilfully disobeyed the temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court. The finding given by the District Judge was not contested. Learned counsel placed a copy of that judgment, in which this observation has been made, for perusal. 4. The original receipt is not here. Even if it would have been produced, the position would have remained the same. Parties entering into compromise, even if any, only shows that there was some dispute, which the parties did not intend to proceed with. Be it as it may, the petitioners cannot take advantage compromise, even if any, while challenging the legality of the order in question. 5. The emphatic argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the complaint being filed, the learned Magistrate did not take care to record the statements of witnesses or send the complaint to the police for investigation rather he relied upon the material coming forth from the police investigation filed along with the final report. 5. The emphatic argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the complaint being filed, the learned Magistrate did not take care to record the statements of witnesses or send the complaint to the police for investigation rather he relied upon the material coming forth from the police investigation filed along with the final report. According to learned counsel, when in the final report the police has given the finding that no case is made out,the learned Magistrate should have collected further material to arrive at a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the police. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Mohammad. Atullah v. Ram Saran, AIR 1981 SC 1155 . 6. I have carefully examined the record of the Court of learned Magistrate containing the final report filed by the police and the investigation made by it. It is true that the police has filed report in the matter but that report has not been accepted by the court. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order has clearly mentioned that he had looked into the final report and the relevant judgments of the court filed by the complainant. He has also given the names of the witnesses examined by the police and then has arrived at the conclusion that it was a fit case in which cognizance should be taken and process should be issued against the accused named in the complaint. The application of brain by the learned Magistrate is also evident from the fact that he had dropped the proceedings agent one accused named in the complaint because, according to him, no case was made out against him. 7. In the case relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners, the facts and circumstances of the case, were altogether different There was no material worth the name before the learned S.D.M. to proceed against the accused. The report of the executive officer to whom the complaint was sent by the learned S.D M. for investigation was, according to their Lordships, acreptic report to the effect that a prima facie case was made out against certain persons and no case was made out against the rest. That report has been reproduced in the judgment. The report of the executive officer to whom the complaint was sent by the learned S.D M. for investigation was, according to their Lordships, acreptic report to the effect that a prima facie case was made out against certain persons and no case was made out against the rest. That report has been reproduced in the judgment. The report was not accompanied by any other document and, for that reason their lordships opined that the material before the Magistrate was, as it was at the time of filing the complaint. The position in the case on hand is altogether different. A good number of witnesses had been examined by the police during the course of investigation. (he statements were filed along with the final report. The judgments of the District Court and the High Court passed in the civil litigation concerning this very shop were there before the court. It was on considering that material that the learned Magistrate has arrived at a conclusion, and in my opinion rightly so, that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. 8. The answer to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate should have sent the matter to the police I for investigation is found in Section 2W, Cr. P C. The intention of Legislature I to enact that Section was to avoid duplicacy of proceedings in cases where a report is filed with the police and at the same time complaint is lodged in the I court. In such cases, the concerned Magistrate is required to stay the proceedings on the investigation. The learned counsel for the complaint and call for the report on the matter from the Police Officer conducting petitioners submits that this Section is not attracted in the case because the report was not called, but it was filed by the police. In my opinion, it will not make any difference. What is envisaged is the material available with I the police upon investigation and its report in that concern. When the I police had thoroughly investigated into the matter and filed the report, whatever its opinion might be, along with the statements of the witnesses, there was no necessity for the learned Magistrate to send the complaint again to the Police for investigation because no useful purpose would have been served by that. 9. When the I police had thoroughly investigated into the matter and filed the report, whatever its opinion might be, along with the statements of the witnesses, there was no necessity for the learned Magistrate to send the complaint again to the Police for investigation because no useful purpose would have been served by that. 9. In this view of the matter, from whatever angle is might be seen, there appears to be no illegality or impropriety in the order paned by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners and issuing process against them. 10. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******