Judgment S.C.Mookherji, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 21-8-1982 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 324, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 466/81. It is not necessary at this stage to state the facts of the case in detail or to refer all the matters, that have been stated in the application. Unnecessary details in that regard have got to be avoided so that it may not prejudice either the prosecution case or the defence of the petitioner. 3. It is not in controversy that a first information was lodged against the petitioner by an Assistant. Sub-Inspector of police for having committed offences under the various Sections of the Penal Code as indicated above. The Police after investigation submitted final form as insufficient evidence, but the learned Magistrate refused to accept it and passed the impugned order. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that it is not obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to accept the final form, but there are certain norms to be adopted and adhered to before disagreeing with the report of the police. Therefore, he has submitted that in a cryptic way the learned Magistrate has simply stated in his order that cognizance be taken against the person noted in column No. 4 of the final form and at the same time, directed the office to call for the case diary of the case. Accordingly, it has been submitted that this alone is sufficient to indicate that there was no material before the Magistrate to pass the impugned order. If the Magistrate had taken the pains of going through the case-diary and had come to the conclusion the position perhaps, would have been different. There appears much substance in the contention raised. As a matter of fact, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not dispute the submissions made. 5. There is no indication in the order impugned that either any protest complaint was pending before the Magistrate or that he has taken into consideration the protest complaint or any other material available before him. As a matter of fact, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not dispute the submissions made. 5. There is no indication in the order impugned that either any protest complaint was pending before the Magistrate or that he has taken into consideration the protest complaint or any other material available before him. The order will simply indicate that a final form was submitted indicating therein that there was want of evidence to proceed with the case. The learned Magistrate neither rejected the final form, nor accepted it on the contrary, straightway passed an order that the accused named in column 4 should be summoned and accordingly he took cognizance of the offence This is not permissible in law. A cognizance-taking magistrate can take cognizance of an offence against an offender in certain circumstances and in the manner prescribed in law and not in the manner, in which he has passed the order impugned. in the circumstances, without further entering into the merit of the case, the order impugned is set aside with a direction to the Magistrate to look into the matter afresh after giveing an opportunity to the parties concerned to place their points with reference to the materials available in the case diary and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 6. With these observations this application is allowed. Let the records of the lower court be sent atonce.