V. P. MATHUR, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by Mr. M. L. Agarwal, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra on 23-7-1984 in Criminal Revision No. 420 of 1983. The learned Judge set aside the order dated 3-5-1983 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Kharagarh at Agra in the case of State v. Betal Singh and others, through which he had summoned the accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 17 to stand their trial under Section 379 etc. of the I. P. C. in case Crime No. 15 of 1983. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 30-1-1983 by Kamod Singh Sharma against the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 17 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 427 and 147 of the I. P. C. The case was duly registered at police station. Iradat nagar on 8- 2-1983 as Crime Case No. 15 of 1983. Investigation was made and then the police submitted its report on lf-15-2-1983 through which it mentioned that after persual of the evidence, no case was made out. This final report went up before the learned Magistrate. Simultaneously, a protest petition dated 4-4- 1983 was also filed by the first informant, along with affidavits of four witnesses Suresh Chandra, Raghubir Singh, Pooran and Babu. The learned Magistrate rejected the final report and straightway summoned the opposite parties No. 1 to 17. 3. Against this order Criminal Revision No. 420 of 1983 was preferred by Betal Singh and others. The learned Sessions Judge Sri M. L. Agarwal, (the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge) disposed it of on 23-7- 1984. He allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 3-5-1983 passed by the learned Munsif- Magistrate, Kheragarh. It is against this order that the pre sent revision has been filed. 4. The two leading cases regarding the legal position which arises for consideration in such cases are : (i) Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Singh, AIR 1968 SCI 17; and (ii) H. S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883 . 5. In Abhinandan Jhas case, the following law was laid down : (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure does notuse the expressions charge-sheet or final-report. 5. In Abhinandan Jhas case, the following law was laid down : (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure does notuse the expressions charge-sheet or final-report. But it is understood in view of the Police Manual containing Rules and Regulations, that a report filed by the police, under Section 170 of the Cr. P. C. is referred to as a charge-sheet. But in respect of reports sent under Section 169 i. e. when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the same is termed variously in different states as either referred charge or final report or summary. (2) The use of the words, "may take cognizance of any offence" in sub-section (1) of Section 190 imports the exercise of a judicial discretion and the Magistrate who receives the report under Sec tion 173, will have to consider the said report and judicially takes a decision, whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. (3) There may however be instances when the Magistrate may take the view on a consideration of the Final Report, that the opinion formed by the police is not based on a full and complete investi gation, in which case, he will have ample jurisdiction to give direction to the police under Section 156 (3) to make a further investigation. If ultimately the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence under Section 90 (i) (b) of the Cr. P. C. notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expres sed in the final report 6. In the case of H. S. Bains (supra) the observations of the Supreme Court may be summarised as follows : "section 190 of the Cr. P. C. (old) was slightly different. Clauses (i) (b) used to read :- "upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer. " In clause (1) (c) after the word knowledge the words "suspicion" occurred which have now been omitted. Chapter-XV (Sections 200 to 203) of the Code deals with complaints to Magistrates. The Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint is required by Section 200, to examine the complai nant and the witnesses present, if any Section 202, Cr. " In clause (1) (c) after the word knowledge the words "suspicion" occurred which have now been omitted. Chapter-XV (Sections 200 to 203) of the Code deals with complaints to Magistrates. The Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint is required by Section 200, to examine the complai nant and the witnesses present, if any Section 202, Cr. P. C. provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance of a case on the complaint, may if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and can either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purposes of deciding whether or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Section 203 of the Cr. P. C. empowers the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint, if after considering to statement under Section 200. Cr. P. C. and the result of enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. he is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. 7. Thus on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate has several courses open to him : (i) he may take cognizance of the offence and may proceed to record the statements of the complainant as witnesses under Section 200, Cr. P. C. Thereafter if, in his opinion, there is no sufficient ground to proceed, he may dismiss the complaint under Section 203, Cr. PC. If in his opinion, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may issue process under Section 204, Cr. P. C. However, if he thinks fit he may postpone the issue of process and can either enquire into the case himself or can direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. He may then either issue of process, if there is sufficient ground or may dismiss the complaint, if there is nothing. (ii) On the other hand, in the first instance on receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate may instead of taking cognizance of the offence, can direct an investigation under Section 156 (3) to be made. The police will then investigate and submit a report under Section 173 (1) of the Cr. (ii) On the other hand, in the first instance on receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate may instead of taking cognizance of the offence, can direct an investigation under Section 156 (3) to be made. The police will then investigate and submit a report under Section 173 (1) of the Cr. P. C. and on receiving this police report, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 90 (1) (b) and straightway issue process. 8. Thus he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in the report whether the offence has been made out or not. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the police and he may decide to issue pro cess, even if police recommended that there is no sufficient ground to proceed further. 9. The Magistrate after receiving the police report may without issuing process or dropping the proceedings, decide to take cognizance of the offence on to basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and can proceed to record the statements on oath under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. and thereafter can decide whether to dismiss to complaint or to issue the process. The mere fact that earlier he had ordered an investigation under Section 156 (3) and re ceived a report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. will not totally efface the complaint. 10. Thus if on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate orders for an inves tigation under Section 156 (3) and receives a police report under Section 173 (1), he may : (i) decide that there is no sufficient ground to proceed further and drop the action ; (ii) may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (b) on the basis of the police report and issue of process out-right without being bound is any way by the police conclusion ; (iii) any taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) on the basis of the original complaint, can proceed under Sees. 200, 202 and 203, etc. of the Cr. P. C. or may hold and direct enquiry under Section 202. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chandra Shekhar and others v. State, 1978 A Cr. 200, 202 and 203, etc. of the Cr. P. C. or may hold and direct enquiry under Section 202. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chandra Shekhar and others v. State, 1978 A Cr. R. page 455 on 17-11-1978 made the following observations : - (i) If the police report is in respect of a case in which it appears to the Officer-in-charge of the police- station that an offence has been committed by the accused, then he is required to submit under Section 173 (5) of the Cr. P. C. : (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prose cution proposes to rely other than those which had already been sent during investigation ; (b) statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. of all persons whom prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses; (c) to the Magistrate along with the police report. The Magistrate can take cognizance only under Section 190 (1) (b ). (ii) If the police report is in respect of a case in which it appears to the office-in-charge of a Police Station that an offence has not been committed, then he is not required to send the F. I. R. or the Medical Report or any other document mentioned in Section 173 (5) of the Cr. P. C. to the Magistrate. Normally therefore, the question of his taking cognizance under Section 190 (i) (c) on the basis of information contained in the first information Report or medical report would not arise. 12. But where the Investigating Officer submits first information report and the medical report to the Magistrate along with the police report to the effect that the accused do not commit any offence, although he was not requir ed to submit these documents, the information contained in the First Informa tion Report and the Medical Report will not be deemed to be an information received from a person other than a police officer, but will be construed to be an information received from a police officer. 13. A single Judge of this court in the matter of Ram Adhar v. State, reported in 1981 ACrr 288 considering a case for offences under Sections 147, 328, 352, 342 and 302, I. P. C. The police had investigated the case and submit ted what is known popularly as final report. 13. A single Judge of this court in the matter of Ram Adhar v. State, reported in 1981 ACrr 288 considering a case for offences under Sections 147, 328, 352, 342 and 302, I. P. C. The police had investigated the case and submit ted what is known popularly as final report. The Magistrate did not agree with it and took cognizance under Section 190 of the Cr. P. C. and summoned the accused without any additional fact coming to his knowledge, apart from what had been contained in police papers basing its judgment on the basis of the case of abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Singh (supra) and dissenting from the view taken in the case of Chhoten v. State, 1981 LLJ page 70 and the case of Shesh Nath Chaubey v. State, 1978 AWC 543. This court held that the Magistrate was completely compowered to take cognizance under Section |90 (1) (b) and straightway issue process. 14. In the case of Gajadhar Singh v. Mahesh Chandra and others, 1981 ACR 218 decided on 2nd March, 1981, a Single Judge of this Court was dealing with a matter in which the Magistrate disagreeing with the police final report has summoned the accused. The complaint had filed two affidavits during the course of investigation. The court was of-the view that after the case of H. S. Bains (supra) it was now well settled that in case of a final police report the Magistrate can differ from the police view and can straightway take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In such cases the procedure to be followed would be the same as in the case of taking cognizance on a police report. It was further observed that in view of Abhinandan Jhas case (supra) in case of a disagreement with a final report the Magistrate had three alternatives (1) he could direct the police to make further investigation under Section 156 (3) and if they again submit a final report then he could take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b), (2) he could straightway take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. , and (3) in cases where infor mant files a protest petition he could taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code treating the protest petition as a complaint. 15. P. C. , and (3) in cases where infor mant files a protest petition he could taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code treating the protest petition as a complaint. 15. In all final report cases w here there is no formal complaint, the essential basis for the Magistrate for taking cognizance is the First Informa tion Report and the material contained in the case diary. It is now clear from Bains case (supra) that cognizance can be taken under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. Filing of affidavits by witnesses cannot suffice to change the basis for the taking of the cognizance. These affidavits can only be treated to be subsidiary and ancillary and the main basis shall still remain the First Information Report and the material in the case diary. 16. It is open to the Magistrate in a particular case to treat a protest petition as complaint and there is some authority that where the protest happens to be by the informant, the Magistrate should consider it to be a complaint. 17. The same Honble Judge in the case of Baboo v. State, 1981 ACR 152 decided on 30-1-1981 held that in view of bains case (supra), the earlier Division Bench case of Ramchandra v. Slate of U. P. 1970 AWR 826 and Single Judge decisions in Krishna Kant Tewari v. State of U. P. , 1980 AWC 513 and Sahu Ram v. State of U. P. , Iy78 ACC 150 are no longer good law and the Magistrate could take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and follow the procedure of cases instituted on police reports. 18. The cases of Abhinandan Jha, H. S. Bains (supra) and of Mohammad Ataullah v. Ram Saran, AIR 1981 SC 1155 . Mumtai v. State of U. P. , 1982 ACC 319, Bhopal Singh v. State of U. P. , 1972 ACC 94 and Tula Ram v. Kishore Kumar Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2401 were all considered by this court in the matter of Mohammad Sharif and others v. State of U. P. and another, 1984 (1) Crimes, 740. In this case also the accused were summoned by the Magistrate as he considered that prima facie case against them was made out on a perusal of the case diary. In this case also the accused were summoned by the Magistrate as he considered that prima facie case against them was made out on a perusal of the case diary. A revision was filed and the revisional court upheld the order taking the view that this order could be treated to be one under Section 190 (1 l) (a) or 190 (1) (o), of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners took the stand that if the Magistrates view was justified then the procedure provid ed under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. should be followed. The court held that the summoned order was neither under Section 190 (1) (e) nor under Section 190 (1) (c), Cr. P. C, but was to be covered by Section 190 (1) (b) and the order of the Magistrate to proceed forthwith by summoning the accused was perfectly justified. 19. Some more recent judgments of this court are in the matter of jai Nath v. State of U. P. , 1987 AWC 1190 and Ravish Chandra v. State of U. P. , 1986 (23) ACC 90. It may, however, be made clear that when the Magistrate sits down to take cognizance on the basis of the police final report he can do so only if along with the final report there are some papers, especially to copy of the First Information Report and the statements of the witnesses recorded in the case diary on the basis of which he can take cognizance. As I have already mentioned earlier, a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chandra Shekhar was of the view that normally along with a final report the police does not submit any papers as are mentioned in Section 173 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code and in such cases no question of taking cognizance on the basis of the information contained in the final report would arise but if in any case copy of the First Information Report, Medical report or the case diary is also submitted along with to final report, the Magistrate will be justified in rejecting the final report and summoning the accused out right, taking cognizance on the basis of the papers filed by the police officer along with his report. 20. 20. Another way in which cognizance can be taken shall be on the basis of a protest petition where the Magistrate can reject the final report and take cognizance, provided the protest petition contains facts which can con vert it into a complaint as has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code in case the protest petition simply lays down that the investi gating authorities did not properly investigate the case and that the final report should be rejected without in any other way bringing such a petition within four corner of the definition of "complaint", on its basis the Magistrate would not be justified in taking cognizance because then there will be no complaint. 21. In the present case the learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the legal aspect of the case correctly and lucidly but his application of the law no facts of the case is wrong The lower courts record is before me. The protest petition which was moved did not contain anything which could bring it with in the definition of a complaint, as given in Section 2 (d) of the Criminal Proce dure Code. Hence in the present cafe the cognizance has not been taken as it could not have been taken on the protest petition. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance on the police report and in the present case the police report did contain the case diary in which the statements of the witnesses have been recorded and I have perused them. The matter rests with the satisfaction of the Magistrate and if he has basis for such satisfaction, the revisional court cannot challenge his satisfaction on the ground that the basis was wrong or that a different opinion could have been formed. As such the learned Magis trate was perfectly justified in taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and non- issue of process under Sections 200 and 2o2, Cr. P. C. will not affect the matter as following such a procedure not at all necessary. The learned Magistrate was perfectly justified and within his jurisdiction to straight way summon the accused, taking cognizance under Sec tion 190 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of the police report with which the case diary was also submitted. 22. The learned Magistrate was perfectly justified and within his jurisdiction to straight way summon the accused, taking cognizance under Sec tion 190 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of the police report with which the case diary was also submitted. 22. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23-7- 1984 is quashed and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Agra, on 31-5-1983 is restored. Revision allowed. .