JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Petitioners are accused persons in G. R. Case No. 167 of 1985 and have assailed the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate dated 5-8-1985 taking cognizance under Sections 509/323134, Indian Penal Code. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was' serving as the District Inspector of Schools, Bhanjanagar and Petitioners 2,3,4 and 5 are sons and daughters of Petitioner 'No. 1. 'Petitioner's case is that on 26-4-1985 one Sarmista Pati lodged a report at Bhanjanagar Police Station making some allegations against Petitioner No. 1 to the effect that Petitioner No. 1 took money from her for her absorption against a permanent post, but yet did not absorb her and on the date of occurrence it was alleged that she was on the verandah and demanded return of the money but the sons and daughters of Petitioner No. 1 assaulted the informant. After registering a case the police then investigated into the matter and ultimately submitted a final form on 31-5-1985 stating therein that no offence is made out against the Petitioners. Notwithstanding the submission of the said final form, the learned Magistrate, however, by the impugned order dated 5-8-1985 without applying his mind to the materials on record, took cognisance against the Petitioners and the said order of taking cognisance .is being impugned. 3. Mr. Ratho, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, raises two contentions in assailing the order of cognizance, namely ; (i) In view of the final report submitted by the police the Magistrate bad no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence and (ii) Even if the Magistrate had the power to take cognisance, notwithstanding the submission of the final form by the police yet the entire materials on record not having established the offences in question, the order of cognisance cannot be sustained. 4. So far as the first submission of Mr. Ratho is concerned, it is based on, an analysis of the provisions contained in Sections 173 and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. 4. So far as the first submission of Mr. Ratho is concerned, it is based on, an analysis of the provisions contained in Sections 173 and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Ratho, filing of charge-sheet or final form lies within the jurisdiction of the police and in a case where the police files final form and the Magistrate is satisfied that the opinion of the police is not based on a full and complete investigation, then he may have jurisdiction to give further direction to police u/s 156 (3) of the Code to make further investigation, but he cannot take cognisance differing with the opinion of the police. In support of the aforesaid contention, he places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha and Others Vs. Dinesh Mishra. A scrutiny of the aforesaid -Supreme Court decision in my opinion, does not support the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The question which arose for consideration the said Supreme Court case was whether a Magistrate could direct the police to submit a charge-sheet when the police after investigation into a cognisable offence has submitted a final report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After an .elaborate discussion on that point and referring to the divergent views of different High Courts and on an analysis of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court held that the Power to file charge-sheet u/s 173 of the Code lay .with the police and the Magistrate had no power to direct the police to file a charge-sheet. While saying so, the Supreme Court also considered the power of the Magistrate in a case where the: police files the final form and the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there has been no due inquiry. After referring to Sections 173 and 156 (3) of the Code the Supreme, Court held: ...If the Magistrate feels, after considering the final report that the investigation is unsatisfactory or incomplete or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the police to make further investigation, u/s 156 (3).... It is on this observation of the Supreme Court upon which Mr. It is on this observation of the Supreme Court upon which Mr. Ratho for the Petitioners relies for his submission and contends that the Magistrate at the best could have directed, further investigation, but could not have taken cognisance differing with the opinion of the police. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Ratho, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The Supreme Court decision, referred to supra does not lay down the law in that form. On the other hand, the Supreme Court itself has observed: ... If ultimately, the Magistrate form the opinion that the facts, set out in the final report constitute an offence he can take cognisance of the offence u/s 190 (1) (b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report. In my view, the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court is directly against Mr. Ratho's contention. Even on a bare analysis of the provisions of the Code, I am of the view that the power of taking cognisance of the' Magistrate, u/s 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not controlled by the submission of a charge-sheet or final form, as provided u/s 173 of the Code. If, therefore, Magistrate is satisfied on the basis of the materials on record that a prima facie case has been established then the Magistrate would be free to take cognisance of the offence notwithstanding the submission of a final report by .the police u/s 173. 'This conclusion of mine is supported by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gyanendra Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. States 1980 Cri. L. J. 1449. In this connection, it would be appropriate to notice another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.S. Bain v. The State Union Territory of Chandigarh) AIR 1980 S.C. 1883 . After referring to Sections 173, 156 (3) and 190 of the code of Criminal Procedure it was observed by their Lordships: ...On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence u/s 190 (l) (b), and straightway issue process. This he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offence has been made out or not. The police report u/s 173 will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police and the conclusions drawn by the police therefrom. This he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offence has been made out or not. The police report u/s 173 will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police and the conclusions drawn by the police therefrom. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the police and he may decide to issue process even if the police recommend that, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further.... (underlining is mine). This observation of the Supreme Court fully supports my conclusion earlier and in that view of the matter the first contention of Mr. Ratho, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, must be rejected. 5. Coming flow to the second contention, I find however, there is sufficient force in the same, the statements of all the witnesses who ate examined u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were placed before and after applying my mindfully to those statements and considering the statements on their face value the offence alleged are not constituted. It is too well-settled that of this stage, the Court after taking the materials on their face value into consideration if comes to a conclusion that no offence is constituted then the Court would be entitled to quash the order of cognisance by invoking the inherent jurisdiction as otherwise, it would be an abuse of the process of law. Since I have come to the conclusion that the materials on record do not establish the offences in question it would meet and proper to quash the order of cognisance. Accordingly, the order of cognisance dated 5-8-1985 in G. R. Case No. 167 of 1985 of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Bhanjanagar is hereby quashed and this application is allowed. Final Result : Allowed