Judgment A. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the Magistrate while issuing the process should not pass a detailed speaking order. It is incumbent that he must refer to the gist of the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code and prima facie show that on this material there exist sufficient ground for taking cognizance. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by which the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-1-1989 by which cognizance was taken against Prathapa Narsa, Babuda Thakaria, Sankalia, Bhagwana and Kallia under Sections 147, 148,324,302/149 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on June 6, 1986 a First Information Report No. 46/86 was filed by Panney Singh at Police Station, alleging that Prathapa has caused a knife blow 10 Gajendra and he has died as a result thereof. Thereafter a complaint was also filed by one Madan Singh and in that he alleged that apart from Prathapa number of persons responsible for causing death of Gajendra Singh. This complaint was also sent to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3 ). Meanwhile, it may also be relevant to mention there that one more F. I. R. No. 45/86 was filed by one Lachha Ram, alleging therein that murder of Prathap and Narsa had been committed by 12 accused persons. The police filed a final report on 14-11-1986 in relation to the F. I. R. No. 46/86 and a complaint filed by Madan Singh on November 14, 1986. Thereafter another complaint was filed by Panney Singh before the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202, took the cognizance against the accused by his order dated 4-1-1989. Against this order, the present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by accused persons, for quashing the same. ( 3 ) GARG, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has submitted that a bare reading of the order would show that the learned Magistrate has not looked into the police papers by which a final report was given by the police, against the accused persons and the Magistrate has also not given the gist of ihe witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. Learned Counsel submits that it was incumbent for the learned magistrate to have looked into the police papers as well as the statement and, thereafter, he should have passed proper order showing the application of mind. In support of his contention learned counsel invited my attention to Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan. As against this, Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously urged before me that taking of the cognizance by the Magistrate, should not be interferred under Section 482 Cr. P. C. as the accused will have proper opportunity to defend himself before the Magistrate,learned counsel invited my attention to Kachheru Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh and another, Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh and others, H. S. Bains v. State and Nagawwa v. Veeranna, learned counsel submitted that it is not necessary for the Magistrate to look into the police papers before taking the cognizance. ( 4 ) I have heard both the learned counsel at length and have perused the record placed before me. In H. S. Bains v. State (supra) their Lordships have observed that under various provisions he can take cognizance against the accused. It has been observed that there are various modes open for the Magistrate he can take the cognizance under Section 156 (3) on the Police Papers, he can take cognizance even on the final report by police, he can take cognizance, after recording statement under Sections 200, 202 and 204. In para 6 of the aforesaid judgment it has been observed as under: ( 5 ) IT is seen from the provisions to which we have referred in the preceding paragraphs that on receipt of a complaint a magistrate has several courses open to him. He may take cognizance of the offence and proceed to record the statements of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200. Therefore, if in his opinion there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he may dismiss the complaint under Section 203. If in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding he may issue process under Section 204. He may take cognizance of the offence and proceed to record the statements of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200. Therefore, if in his opinion there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he may dismiss the complaint under Section 203. If in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding he may issue process under Section 204. However, if he thinks fit, he may postpone the issue of process and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. He may then issue process if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding or dismiss the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. On the other hand, in the first instance, on receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate may, instead of taking cognizance of the offence, order an investigation under Section 156 (3 ). The police will then investigate and submit a report under Section 173 (1 ). On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (b) and straightaway 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 under Section 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. The magistrate after receiving the police report may without issuing process or dropping the proceeding decide to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statements upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether to dismiss the complaint or issue process. The mere fact that he had earlier ordered an investigation under Section 156 (3) and received a report under Section 173 not have the effect of total effecement of the complaint and therefore the magistrate will not be barred from proceeding under Sections 200, 203 and 204. The mere fact that he had earlier ordered an investigation under Section 156 (3) and received a report under Section 173 not have the effect of total effecement of the complaint and therefore the magistrate will not be barred from proceeding under Sections 200, 203 and 204. 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, thereafter, do one of 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 basis of the police report and issue process; thus he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200, If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or, direct an inquiry under Section 202, if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be. ( 6 ) WE are concerned with the last contingency in the present case. In the present case the police has filed a final report and the learned Magistrate, without referring to the final report has considered the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. and took the cognizance. In Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204 it has not been laid down that it is incumbent on the learned Magistrate to look into the police papers. It is a different thing that it is expedient to do so. But the mandate of these four Sections does not bind the learned Magistrate to look into the police papers. It is only an expediency which requires that before taking the cognizance the Magistrate should be conscious of the fact that what is the result of the police investigation, vis-a-vis the statement recorded before him under Section 202 Cr. P. C. By looking into these materials, his task will be easier as he will have both pictures before him. It is only an expediency which requires that before taking the cognizance the Magistrate should be conscious of the fact that what is the result of the police investigation, vis-a-vis the statement recorded before him under Section 202 Cr. P. C. By looking into these materials, his task will be easier as he will have both pictures before him. But it is not a mandate by which it can be directed that it is binding on him to see the police papers given in the particular case, like a final report. Simply because the learned Magistrate has not looked into the police papers, the order cannot be quashed. Section 204 reads as under: p204 Issue of process (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be a summons case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or a warrant - case, he may issue a warrant or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-Section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub Section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. (5) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87. ( 7 ) SECTION 204 says that if in the opinion of the Magistrate there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance of offence and then he can issue the process. That shows that atleast when the process is issued he should form an opinion and further satisfy that there exist sufficient ground for doing so. This should appear from the order that the learned Magistrate has formed the opinion on the basis of sufficient material. This should appear from bare reading of order. That shows that atleast when the process is issued he should form an opinion and further satisfy that there exist sufficient ground for doing so. This should appear from the order that the learned Magistrate has formed the opinion on the basis of sufficient material. This should appear from bare reading of order. That will facilitate the superior courts that on what material the learned Magistrate has issued the process. After all when the process is issued and cognizance is taken and summons is issued the demode sword will hang over the head of the man against whom a cognizance is taken, therefore, he is entitled to know as to what has been weighed in the mind of the learned Magistrate so as to issue a process. It is not necessary for the Magistrate to write a detailed speaking order but at least it should appear that he has applied his mind for coming to the conclusion for issuing the process. Therefore, the expression opinion and sufficient groundt gives an indication that before issuing process the Magistrate should show that on what material he has issued the process. It is true that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kachheru Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and others (supra) had set aside the order made by the Sessions and the High Courts and directed that since a summon has been issued to the accused he will get opportunity to raise his point of view, before the learned Magistrate and he can discharge or acquite the accused as the case may be. But nowhere in the cases which were cited before me Hon. Supreme Court has Sic* that is not necessary for the Magistrate to pass an order showing the application of mind. It is true that Mr. Lodha J. , in Bhanwarlal and anr. v. State of Rajasthan and anr. 6 has observed:ttit is only under Section 203 that while dismissing a complaint the Magistrate has to briefly record his reasons for doing so but for taking cognizance for issuing process against the accused under Section 204 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate is not required to record a reasoned order. v. State of Rajasthan and anr. 6 has observed:ttit is only under Section 203 that while dismissing a complaint the Magistrate has to briefly record his reasons for doing so but for taking cognizance for issuing process against the accused under Section 204 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate is not required to record a reasoned order. ( 8 ) BUT the expression as pointed out, opinion and sufficient ground does show that the learned Magistrate, while issuing the process should show some application of mind by his order. It has come to my notice that in number of cases stereotype orders are passed by the Magistrate, where by they only refer the names of the witnesses and thereafter issue the process by taking the cognizance. That kind of order is not contemplated under Section 204 Cr. P. C. by this, it should not mean to suggest that the Magistrate should pass a detailed speaking order. But it is incumbent that they must refer to the gist of the statement recorded by them under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. and prima facie show that on this material there exist sufficient ground for taking cognizance. ( 9 ) NOW advertising to the facts of the present case, one thing is very glaring that if the learned Magistrate has looked into the police papers, i. e. the final report, perhaps he would not have issued a process against accused Prathap and Narsa, who are alleged to have been murdered in an incident; which alleged to have taken place on June 6, 1986 itself. By not looking into the police papers he has also issued process against dead persons i. e. Prathap and Narsa. This shows that in the present case the learned Magistrate appears to have not even looked into the papers properly and has not applied his mind in a manner which he ought to have done. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, in the result I allow this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , quash the order dated 4/1/1989 and direct that the learned Magistrate to look into the matter in the light of the observation made in this case and in the case of Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra ). ( 11 ) THE learned Magistrate should expeditiously dispose of the matter, within a period of one month.