A.K. MATHUR, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr. PC. by which the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.89 by which cognizance was taken against Prathapa, Narsa, Babuda, Thakaria, Sakalia, Bhagwana and Kaliya u/ss. 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 to Gajender Singh and he has died as a result therof. Thereafter a complaint was also filed by one Madan Singh and in that he has alleged that apart from Prathapa, number of person were responsible for causing death of Gajendra Singh. This complaint was also sent to the police for investigation, u/s 156 (3). Meanwhile, it may also be relevant to mention here that one more FIR No. 45/86 was filed by one Lachha Ram. alleging therein that murder of Prathapa and Narsa had been committed by 12 accused persons. The police filed a final report on 14-11-86 in relation to the FIR No. 46/86 and a complaint filed by Madan Singh on November \4, 1986. Thereafter another complaint was filed by Panney Singh before the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, after recording the statement u/ss. 200 and 202, took the cognizance against the accused by his order dated 4-1-89. Against this order, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused person, for quashing the same. 3. Mr. 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 had also not given the gist of the witnesses recorded u/ss.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 statements 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 (1). 4. As against this, Mr. In support of his contention learned counsel invited my attention to Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1). 4. As against this, Mr. Doongar Singh learned counsel for the respondent has straneously urged before me that taking of the cognizance by the Magistrate, should not be interferred u/s 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 vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2), Gopal Vijay Verma vs. Bhuneshwar Pras d Sinha(3). H.S. Bains v. State(4) and Nagawwa v. Veeranna (5)- Learned counsel submitted that it is not necessary for the Magistrate to look into the police papers before taking the cognizance. 5. 1 have heard both the learned counsel at length and have perused the record placed before me. 6. In H.S. Bains vs. State (supra), their Lordiships 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 u/s 156 (3) on the police papers, he can take cognizance even on the final report by police, he can take cognizance after recording statements u/ss. 200, 202 and 204. In para 6 of the aforesaid judgment it has been observed as under:- "6. 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 Sec. 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 whe-there 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. 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 (I). On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (b) and straight away issue process. This he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offience has been made out or not. The police report under Section 173 will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police and the conclusion drawn by the police therefrom. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion 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 origiraliy 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 will not have the effect of total offacement 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 will not have the effect of total offacement 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, therefore, 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; this 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 Sec. 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". 7. We are concerned with the last contingency in the present case In the. present case the police has filed report and the learned Magistrate without referring to the final report has considered the statement recorded u/ss. 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. and took the cognizance. In Ss. 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 he conscious of the fact that what is the result of the police investigation, vis-a-vis the statement recorded before him u/s 202 Cr. P.C. By looking into these material his task will be easier as be 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. P.C. By looking into these material his task will be easier as be 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 S. 204 reads under: "204. 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) a summons case, he shall issuse his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) 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." 8. S. 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 will facilitate the superior courts that on what material the learned Magistrate has issued the process. 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 democle 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 ground" 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 vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhureshwar Prasad Singh (supra) have set aside the orders made by the Sessions and the High Court and directed that since a summon has been issued to the accused, he will got opportunity to raise his point of view before the learned Magistrate and he can discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be. But nowhere in the cases which were cited before me Honble Supreme Court has laid down that it is not necessary for the Magistrate to pass an order showing the application of mind. It is true that Mr. Lodha, J. in Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (6) has observed: — "It is only u/s 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 u/s 204 Cr. P.C.C. the Magistrate is not required to record a reasoned order." 9. 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. P.C.C. the Magistrate is not required to record a reasoned order." 9. 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, whereby they only refer the names of the witnesses and thereafter issue the process by taking the cognizance. That kind of order is not contemplated u/s 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 u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and prima-facie show that on this material there exist sufficient ground for taking cognizance. 10. Now, adverting 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 Prathapa 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. Prathapa 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. 11. Therefore, in the result, I allow this petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C., quash the order dated 4-1-89 and direct that the learned Magistrate to look into the matter in the light of the observations made in this case and in the case of Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra). 12. The learned Magistrate should expeditiously dispose of the matter, within a period of one month.