Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the Opposite Party No. 2 and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This is an application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) with prayer quash the order dated 12-11-1989 passed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar taking cognizance of the case under S.436 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioners and issuing notices against them for appearance. 3. The relevant facts for disposal of this application may be briefly stated as follows : On 7-6-1988, the opposite party No. 2 lodged a written information at Katihar Police Station alleging that on the preceding night, the petitioners set fire to his house as a result of which his house was burnt. The Police, on receipt of written information instituted Katihar P.S. Case No. 259 of 1988 under S.436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Witnesses were examined during investigation who supported the case of the first informant (O.P. No. 2) but the Police, after completing the investigation, submitted final report on 31-8-88. The informant (O.P. No. 2) had filed a protest petition against the Police while the investigation was going on. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar on perusal of the statements contained in the case diary did not accept the final report submitted by the Police and took cognizance of the case against these petitioners under S.436 of the Indian Penal Code directing to issue notices against them for their appearance by order dated 12-1-1989 and the present application is directed against the same. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar has illegally taken cognizance of the case and, if at all, the C.J.M. thought it to be a fit case for taking cognizance, he ought to have examined the first informant (O.P. No. 2) on S.A. on the basis of protest petition and then taken cognizance of the case, but he could not have taken cognizance of the case without that when the Police had submitted final report in the case. 5. I do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. I do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was quite justified in taking cognizance of the case on the basis of the materials available in the case diary if he was satisfied on perusal thereof that there was sufficient ground for proceeding. I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Supreme Court in H.S. Bains V/s. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) AIR 1980 SC 1883 : (1980 Cri LJ 1308) in which it has been held that the Magistrate on receipt of the Police report under S.173(1) of the Code may 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 S.190(1)(b) on the basis of the Police report and issue processes. This he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the Police in their report; and (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under S.190(1)(a), on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses u/s. 200". 6. In the instant case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case under S.190(1)(b) of the Code. He has discussed the statements of the witnesses as found in the case diary from which it appears that there are three types of materials against these petitioners some witnesses have claimed to have seen these petitioners setting fire to the house on the alleged date and time of occurrence, some have seen them fleeing away from the place of occurrence and some claim to have reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla and, to them, the first (O.P. No. 2) stated that these petitioners fled away after setting fire to his house. After taking into consideration these statements of the witnesses, the learned C.J.M., Katihar did not agree with the final report submitted by the Police. I find nothing wrong with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. After taking into consideration these statements of the witnesses, the learned C.J.M., Katihar did not agree with the final report submitted by the Police. I find nothing wrong with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it appears from the impugned order that the learned C.J.M. heard the accused petitioners at the time of taking cognizance of the case which was illegal as the accused have no locus standi to be heard at that stage and the learned counsel has placed reliance on the opening lines of the impugned order where it is mentioned that he had heard both the parties on the last date. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 397) Chandradeo Singh V/s. Prakash Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose. In my opinion, the facts of the case relied upon are quite different and they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1951 Pat 449 Jai Ramdeo V/s. Ram Janam Singh and submitted on the basis thereof that the impugned order does not mention the materials on the basis of which the learned C.J.M. arrived at certain findings. The facts of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the present case. Moreover, as stated above, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has very clearly stated the materials in the case diary relying on which he passed the impugned order. Hence, in this submission too of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find no substance. No other point has been taken on behalf of the petitioners. 9. In find no merit in this application and the application is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.