Judgment JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the revisional order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 31/8/1988 whereby he has maintained the order of the learned Addi. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 14/7/1987 taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner Jogendera Singh for the offences under sections 307, 326, 379, and 430/34, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that complainant Baldeo Singh lodged a report at P. S. , Chunavadh that on 23/9/1986 at about 5 p. m. , when it was his turn to take water from the canal to irrigate his field, accused-petitioner Jogendra Singh alongwith his companions forcibly diverted the water course towards their field, which was objected by complainant Baldeo Singh, whereupon, Charan Singh and Nakshatra Singh caught hold of his hands and accused Jogendra Singh inflicted injuries on his head and neck etc. After usual investigation, the police filed a challan against accused Charan Singh and Nakshtra Singh but it did not file challan against accused Jogendra Singh, Complainant Baldeo. Singh filed a protest petition for taking cognizance against accused Jogendra Singh. Till concerned Magistrate being on leave, the learned Addi. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar was directed to deal with this matter by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 14/7/1987 accepted the protest petition filed by complainant Baldeo Singh and took cognizance against him for the. aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. B. R. Arora, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 4 ) IT was contended by Mr. Arora that the Magistrate has now power to take cognizance against the accused under section 190 (1) (b), cr. P. C. in case a report is filed by the police under section 169, Cr. P. C. in favour of a particular accused. ( 5 ) IN this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ratanlal v. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been held that if the police files a negative or a final report then the Magistrate cannot take cognizance under section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. in favour of a particular accused. ( 5 ) IN this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ratanlal v. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been held that if the police files a negative or a final report then the Magistrate cannot take cognizance under section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. and direct the police to file a charge sheet against the accused. The Magistrate had, therefore, no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. on a final report submitted by the police. Mr. Arora, therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid authority of the Court the continuation of these proceedings is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of court. I entirely agree with the learned single Judge of this Court that if the police files a negative or final report then the Magistrate cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet against the accused. These observations of the learned Judge are hased on a decision of their Lodships of the Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra. However, decision of the learned Judge that if the police files a negative or a final report then the Magistrate cannot take cognizance under section 190 (1) (b) does not lay down the correct law in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B. S. Bains v. State, wherein it has been observed as follows:thus, a Magistrate, who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under section 156 (3) and receives a police report under section 173 (1), may there fore, do one of the three things: (1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under section 190 (1) (b) on the hasis of the police report and issue process; he may do so without being bound in any manner by the conclusions arrived at by the police in their reports; (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under section 190 (1) (b) on the hasis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complaint and his witnesses under section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold the enquiry himself or direct an enquiry under section 202 if he thinks fit. There-after he may dismiss the complaint or issue process as the case may be. Relianee was also placed on a decision of this Court in Bagh Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been held that if the Magistrate after considering the police report initially takes cognizance only against some offenders can not again take cognizance against the other accused person after some time on some evidence. If he does so he acts without jurisdiction. In Bagh Singhs case (supra), reliance was placed on a division bench decision in Sheoram Singh v. State of Rajasthan. ( 6 ) A full bench of this Court Dalip Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan6 has held that the powers of the Magistrate are not restricted to take cognizance against a fresh accused person or persons, even if a negative report is filed by the police. In view of this full bench authority, the decision in Bagh Singhs case (supra) and Sheoram Singhs case (supra) can hardly offer any correct guidance in deciding this matter. In Dalip Singhs case, the observations of their Lordships of the Court in Raghubam Dubey v. State of Bihar and Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agrawal were quoted with approval wherein it has been laid down that in case of a negative report and in case of no report as regards certain accused persons, the Magistrate has power to take cognizance under section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) IN this case, the complainant and his witnesses have categorically stated that fatal injuries were inflicted by accused Jogendra Singh and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in taking cognizance against the accused. Thus, I find no illegality in the order of the court below. The order under challenge is well reasoned and it does not cause any grave and substantial injustice to the accused. It also does not amount to the abuse of the process of the Court. ( 8 ) IN the result, I find no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.