JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar taking cognisance against him in ICC Case No. 63 of 1981 and framing charge against him u/s 325/323, Indian Penal Code, after clubbing the complaint case with G.R. Case No. 39 of 1981. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Ashok Kumar Tripathy lodged a report at Bhanjanagar Police Station that Ghanashyam, the Petitioner, and his son Pradyumna Kumar assaulted one Suryanarayan Tripathy on 19-1-1951 at 5.15 p.m. by means of lathi causing severe injuries on his person and left hand. This was registered as Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No. 19 of 1981 and a G.R. Case was instituted in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar, bearing G.R. Case No. 39 of 1981. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against accused Pradyumna Kumar and on the basis of the said charge sheet cognisance was taken against accused Pradyumna Kumar u/s 325/323, Indian Penal Code, by order dated 14-4-1981 in the G.R. case. Thereafter, the injured Suryanarayan Tripathy filed a complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after called the "Code") against Ghanashyam alleging that Ghanashyam assaulted him by a lathi to the left elbow joint and the lower part of the left arm and also to lower part of his left forearm by the said lathi due to which the complainant fell down on the ground. It was Further alleged in the complaint petition that though Ghanashyam and his SOD Pradyumna committed the offence, the police shielded accused Ghanashyam since he was also an officer of the police department and ultimately no charge sheet was filed against him in the G.R. case. In view of the averments in the complaint petition, the learned Magistrate called for the records of the G.R. case and by his order dated 1-10-1981 after perusing the case diary of the G.R. case and hearing the counsel appearing for the complaint, took cognisance of the offence u/s 325, Indian Penal Code, against accused Ghanashyam summoning him to appear in Court on 12-11-1981 and also passed an order clubbing the complaint case with the G.R. case u/s 210(2) of the Code. The Petitioner-accused appeared before the learned Magistrate on 11-12-1981 and was released on bail. On 4-6-1982, the learned Magistrate framed charges against accused Ghanashyam u/s 325/323, Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner-accused appeared before the learned Magistrate on 11-12-1981 and was released on bail. On 4-6-1982, the learned Magistrate framed charges against accused Ghanashyam u/s 325/323, Indian Penal Code. In this revision, the Petitioner challenges the legality of the order of the learned Magistrate in taking cognisance in the complaint case on 1-10-1981 as well as the order framing charges on 4-6-1982. 3. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognisance in the complaint case after a long lapse of time is bad in law since the very same allegations were the subject-matter of the police case wherein charge sheet was filed only against accused Pradyumna Kumar, son of the present Petitioner, and the Magistrate also took cognizance of the offence and issued process against accused Pradyurnna Kumar. In my opinion, there is no substance in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, inasmuch as the narration of events shows that in the F.I.R. lodged by Ashok Kumar Tripathy, brother of the complainant, it was specifically alleged that both Ghanashyam and his son Pradyumna Kumar assaulted the complainant and committed the offence, though the police submitted charge sheet only against the son of Ghanashyam. Thereafter the complaint was lodged making specific allegation that since Ghanashyam was a police officer, the police did not submit charge sheet against him and hence the delay in filing the complaint petition. The delay, if any, in filing the complaint has thus sufficiently been explained. The further submission of Mr. Misra that since the police did not file charge sheet against the accused Petitioner, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case is also devoid of force. Magistrate's power to take cognisance of an offence on the basis of a complaint filed before him, is specifically provided for in Section 190(1)(81) of the Code read with Section 200 thereof. There is no indication in any of these sections for the proposition that since the police did not file charge sheet against one of the accused persons, no complaint can be entertained against the same. I would, therefore, reject the said sub-mission of Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Mr. There is no indication in any of these sections for the proposition that since the police did not file charge sheet against one of the accused persons, no complaint can be entertained against the same. I would, therefore, reject the said sub-mission of Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Mr. Misra then contends that Section 200 of the Code requires the Magistrate to examine the complainant on oath and the witnesses present, if any, before taking cognisance of the offence on the basis of the complaint and the said procedure not having been followed, the order taking cognisance is bad in law. In this connection, he also submits that the learned Magistrate took cognisance in this case by referring to the police papers filed in the G.R. case and this procedure is not permissible in law. With regard to the question whether the Magistrate would be justified in referring to the records of the G.R. case, it appeal's that in the complaint petition itself, averments were made to the effect that police did not submit charge sheet against accused Ghanashyam in the G.R. case since the said Ghanashyam happened to be a co-police officer. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate committed any illegality in referring to the records of the G.R. case. In fact, in an identical case, such a contention has been negatived by this Court. See Jatadhari Rana v. Udhab Khuntia and two Ors. Cr. Rev. No. 377 of 1984, disposed of on 26th. June, 1984. Coming to the other question, namely, whether the Magistrate can take cognisance on the basis of a complaint filed u/s 200 of the Code without examining the complainant, it depends upon an interpretation of Section 200 of the Code. Section 200 no doubt stipulates the normal procedure of examining the complainant on oath and the witnesses present, if any. But Section 190(1)(a) of the Code which authorises the Magistrate to take cognisance nowhere restricts his power of taking cognisance only after the complainant is examined. The provision for examining the complainant is for the benefit of the complainant and the accused is not prejudiced in any manner for non-examination of the complainant at that stage. But Section 190(1)(a) of the Code which authorises the Magistrate to take cognisance nowhere restricts his power of taking cognisance only after the complainant is examined. The provision for examining the complainant is for the benefit of the complainant and the accused is not prejudiced in any manner for non-examination of the complainant at that stage. An order taking cognisance without examination of the complainant cannot be said to be null and void, nor the proceedings can be said to be vitiated on that score. It has been held by different courts that an omission to examine the complainant as required in Section 200 of the Code is a serious irregularity, but this does not necessarily vitiate the proceedings. See Sheikh Mehar Ali Vs. State of Bihar and Another, and Bharat Kishore Lal Singh Deo Vs. Judhistir Modak. In this view of the matter; this contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also fails. 5. As is often said, a cognisance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, and offenders can be added to be proceeded with in the trial, if after taking cognisance of the offence it comes before the Magistrate that the offence in question has been committed by some others also. In the G.R. case the Magistrate took cognisance of the offence u/s 325, Indian Penal Code, on 14-4-1981. Thereafter if on the materials on record, the Magistrate is satisfied, he could have preceded with against the present Petitioner notwithstanding a complaint case being instituted against him. Judged from that angle also, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. 6. Once cognisance has been taken in the complaint case and the self same matter is before the Magistrate in a G.R. case, ends of justice required that both these cases should be clubbed together and should be tried following the procedure of a G.R. case and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly clubbed both these cases and directed that the matter would proceed in accordance with the procedure to be followed in G.R. cases. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submits that the order framing charge is also bad in law since it contravenes Section 244 of the Code. Section 244 applies to cases instituted otherwise than on police report. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submits that the order framing charge is also bad in law since it contravenes Section 244 of the Code. Section 244 applies to cases instituted otherwise than on police report. But in view of the order clubbing the complaint case with the G.R. case and directing that the procedure in G.R. cases should be followed, Section 244 will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case and accordingly, I do not find any force in the said contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 8. In the ultimate result, therefore, all the contentions raised by Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, fail and accordingly this criminal revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed