JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioners are the accused persons in ICC Case No. 60/81 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, who by order dated 17-3-1983 has taken cognisance under Sections 504/352, Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners. The Petitioners prayer in this Court is to quash the cognisance as well as the proceedings since according to the Petitioners, this is a gross abuse of process of' the Court. 2. The Petitioners' case is that on the basis of a first information report dated 2-6-1981 lodged by one Braja Kishore Sahoo, a case under Sections 147/148/448/323/506, I.P.C. was registered against the opposite party No. 1 and four others being Dhenkanal Sadar P.S. Case No. 201/81. The Police registered a G.R. case in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, being G.R. Case No. 353/81. The allegations made in the said case was that opposite party No. 1 along with four others, came in a group armed with Lathis and other weapons on 1-6-1981 at 11 p.m. and entered inside the house of the informant Braja Kishore Sahoo and assaulted the inmates of the house. The police investigated into the case and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against opposite party No. 1 and four others. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognisance on 16-9-1981. The present Petitioner No. 1 was one of the witnesses who was examined by the police u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation of the aforesaid G.R. case. 3. On the basis of another F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge of Sadar P.S., Dhenkanal, on 1-6-1981 of 12 p.m., Dhenkanal P.S. Case No. 203/81 was registered and on the basis of the said F.I.R., G.R. Case No. 355/81 was instituted before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Dhenkanal. In course of investigation into the said offence, large number of persons were examined including Petitioner No. 1 and after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final report on 13-6-1981 indicating therein that no prima facie case has been made out against the present Petitioners and others. The Investigating Officer while submitting the final report also opined that a proceeding u/s 211, I.P.C. should be initiated against opposite party No. 1. The Investigating Officer while submitting the final report also opined that a proceeding u/s 211, I.P.C. should be initiated against opposite party No. 1. On 22-7-1981, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal accepted the report of the Investigating Officer, perused the case diary and came to the conclusion that the case in question was a false one. He, however, did not find any evidence to submit the prosecution report to initiate a proceeding u/s 211, I.P.C. Accordingly G.R. Case No. 355/81 was dropped, but before the said order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate dated 22-7-1981, a complaint petition was filed by opposite party No. 1 against the present Petitioners as well as opposite parties 2 to 15 which was registered as I.C.C. Case No. 60/81 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal. The allegations in the complaint case were the self-same allegations which have been made in the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party No. 1 on 3-6-1981 on the basis of which G.R. Case No. 355/81 had been instituted. The learned Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the complainant on 7-7-1981 and then directed an enquiry to be made u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure. In the enquiry proceeding, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant and thereafter by order dated 17-3-1982, the learned Magistrate took cognisance u/s 504/352, I.P.C. against the Petitioners only. This order is being impugned in the present petition. 4. Mr. Rath, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the order of the Magistrate dated 22-7-1981 in G.R. Case No. 355/81 is a judicial order which the learned Magistrate has passed after applying his mind to all the evidence on record collected in course of investigation by the police. In that view of the matter, the Magistrate cannot take cognisance of an offence in respect of the self-same allegation which was the subject matter of investigation in G.R. case since it would amount to passing two inconsistent orders by the learned Magistrate and therefore, taking cognisance of an offence on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant on the self-same allegations which were the subject matter of the proceeding in G.R. case, must be held to be invalid, inoperative and abuse of the process of Court. Mr. Mr. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand submits that the complaint filed before the Magistrate is to be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and u/s 200 of the Code, a Magistrate has a duty to examine the complainant on oath and also witnesses, if any, present. The Magistrate may thereafter postpone the issue of process against the accused and enquire into the case himself or direct au investigation to be made by a Police Officer for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding as contemplated u/s 202(1) of the Code. In an enquiry under Sub-section (1) of Section 202 of the Code, the Magistrate may take evidence of witnesses on oath. Section 203 of the Code provides that if after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the enquiry or investigation u/s 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint. Mr. Nayak, therefore, contends that a Magistrate on receiving a complaint must be satisfied about the existence of a prima facie case on the basis or the statement on oath of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses and further; the result of the enquiry or investigation, if any, u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and if he is satisfied as to the existence of a prima facie case, then the Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence notwithstanding his earlier acceptance of a final report submitted by the Investigating Officer in a G.R. case arising out of the self- same allegations. The rival contentions require a careful examination of different provisions of the Code. 5. Chapter XII of the Code, starting with Section 154 and culminating in Section 176, deals with the topic Information to the Police and their powers to investigate u/s 154 of the Code. After the Police receives information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station has an obligation to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed Book and to give a copy of the information free of cost to the informant. After the Police receives information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station has an obligation to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed Book and to give a copy of the information free of cost to the informant. Section 156 of the Code anthorises the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to investigate into any cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate. u/s 157 of the Code, the Police has to send a copy of the report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of such offence and the concerned officer should proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and also if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Section 161 of the Code provides that any Police Officer making investigation under this Chapter may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 169 of the Code authorises the Investigating Officer to release the accused when the evidence is deficient and it appears to the Investigating Officer that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate. Section 170 of the Code provides that if upon an investigation, it appears to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate, then such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognisance or the offence upon a police report. Section 173 of the Code which is rather important in the context of the dispute between the parties in the present case, provides for a report of the Police Officer on completion of the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer shall forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance or the offence on a police report, a report in the prescribed form containing all the particulars enumerated in Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 of the Code. Section 173(2)(i) or the Code requires the concerned officer to communicate the action taken by him to the informant. Section 173(2)(i) or the Code requires the concerned officer to communicate the action taken by him to the informant. This provision is really a safety measure for an informant who, on coming to know that police has given a final report, can file a regular complaint or a protest petition which can be treated as a complaint petition. Chapter XIII of the Code deals with jurisdiction of criminal courts in enquires and trials and the provisions contained therein are not very relevant in the present case. The next important provision of the Code, so far as the present case is concerned, is contained in Section 190 in Chapter XIV, which deals with the power of the Magistrate to take cognisance of an offence. In the said section the Magistrate is empowered to take cognisance either on receiving a complaint of facts which constitute offence, or upon a police report, of such fact or upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such an offence has been committed. 'Taking cognisance of an offence' means the first act of judicial action taken by the learned Magistrate after applying his mind to the materials on record to the suspected commission of an offence. Then comes Chapter XV of the Code, starting with Section 200, dealing with complaints made to the Magistrate. u/s 200, the Magistrate is bound to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present. Section 202 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to postpone issue or processes, if the Magistrate so thinks fit, who would then either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, to find out whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Section 203 of the Code deals with the power of the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. 6. Section 203 of the Code deals with the power of the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. 6. A combined reading of all these provisions would establish that if on receiving a first information report regarding commission of an offence, Police investigates into the same and finally submits a final form to the effect that there is no material for the submission of the charge-sheet and the Magistrate accepts the said report by passing 110 judicial order, yet the aggrieved informant can knock the doors of the Magistrate by filing a regular complaint and the Magistrate will not be debarred from entertaining that complaint merely because he has already passed an order accepting the final form submitted by the Police. Normally as provided in the Code itself, that informant has right to obtain information from the police as to the action that is being taken by the Police after investigation as contemplated u/s 173(2)(ii) of the Code. On receipt of such information the informant can file a protest petition, which can be treated as a regular complaint or a regular complaint petition. In such an event the Magistrate should normally consider the materials submitted by the Police in the G. R. case and the materials produced before him by the complainant in the complaint case and pass a final order as to whether he would take cognisance of the offence or not. Section 210 of the Code lays down the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and also a police investigation in respect of the same offence. If the procedure contained in Section 210 of the Code is followed, then there would be no difficulty for the informant who later becomes a complainant. If ultimately the Magistrate takes cognisance in the G. R. case, then both the complaint case and the G.R. case are clubbed together and are tried as if both were instituted on a police report. If the Magistrate does not take cogniance of any offence on the police report, then he shall proceed with the complaint case which had been stayed earlier by him under Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of the Code and dispose of the same in accordance with law. If the Magistrate does not take cogniance of any offence on the police report, then he shall proceed with the complaint case which had been stayed earlier by him under Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of the Code and dispose of the same in accordance with law. While disposing of the complaint case, though the Magistrate will have to follow the procedure contained in Chapter XV of the Code, yet he is not debarred from looking into the police papers in respect of the self-same allegation which was the subject matter of an investigation by police in the G.R. case and in which case, the police had submitted the final form. If, however, the Magistrate does not take into consideration the papers collected by Police during investigation and disposes of the complaint case on the basis of materials produced before him by the complainant, in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XV, then the order of the Magistrate cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, in as much as the complaint case is a separate case by itself having its independent identity. 7. This being the position of law, I would examine the present case to find out how far the impugned order of the Magistrate is legal or illegal. The G.R. Case No. 355/81 which was initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. dated 3-6-81 ended in submission of a final form by Police on 13-6-81. Before the same was accepted by the Magistrate on 22-7-81, the complainant had filed his complaint petition. Obviously on 22-7-81 the Magistrate had no knowledge about the filing of the complaint petition, as the G.R. case was pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance of the offence on 17-3-82 on the basis of the materials produced before him. Obviously he had not looked into the papers submitted by the Police in the G.R. case which was ultimately accepted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 22-7-81. But on that score the order dated 17-3-82 taking cognisance of the offence cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It is not known and Mr. Rath, appearing for the Petitioners is also not in a position to enlighten, as to whether the informant was duly informed about the submission of a final form as required u/s 173(2)(ii) of the Code. It is not known and Mr. Rath, appearing for the Petitioners is also not in a position to enlighten, as to whether the informant was duly informed about the submission of a final form as required u/s 173(2)(ii) of the Code. Be that as it may, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having applied his mind, to the materials produced before him, namely, the initial statement of the complainant and the statement of one witness examined during enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and having been satisfied about the existence of a prima facie case and having taken cognisance of the offence on the basis of those materials, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the said order merely because the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not considered the materials which were collected by the police during investigation in the G.R. case. 8. In the result, therefore, I do not find any merits in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order of stay passed by this Court on 10-5-82 is hereby vacated. As the complaint case is pending since long, the Magistrate is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Final Result : Dismissed