JUDGMENT 1. - The order dated March 17th, 1990 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Karauli taking cognizance under Sections 451.323 and 504 IPC against the accused petitioners has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. It may be mentioned that the present petitioners have also lodged a first information report on the basis of which a case is pending against the non-petitioner complainant. This complainant Radhey Shyam lodged a first information report with the Police and it is stated that after investigation the police has given a final report. The complainant submitted a protest petition and the learned Magistrate recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and decided to take cognizance against the petitioners. 2. The order passed by the learned Magistrate does not show that the report of the police or the investigation made by it was taken into consideration while passing the order taking cognizance against the petitioners. Under Section 210 Cr. PC. when a complaint is made before the Magistrate and it appears to him that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial before him he shall stay the proceedings and call for the report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. The object of this provision is that a person is not to be harassed twice. At the same time it may also be said that it is necessary to look into the investigation made by the police in order to decide whether the Magistrate should proceed on the basis of the complaint or not. If the police has already given a report before filing of the complaint then this report as well as the investigation made by the police can also be said to be necessary for purposes of deciding whether proceedings against an accused should be taken or not. If the report is that offence has been committed by the accused then it is not necessary to proceed in the complaint case. If the report is that offence has been committed by the accused then it is not necessary to proceed in the complaint case. If the report is that the accused has not committed the offence then the Magistrate ought to be cautious in taking proceedings on a complaint and at this stage he has to look into the investigation made by the police in order to decide whether cognizance on the basis of the complaint can be taken or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that the Magistrate has looked into the report of the police or the investigation made by it. This step is clearly against the provisions of law and as such, the order dated March 17th, 1990 deserves to be quashed. Considering the circumstances that the present petitioners have also lodged a report and it could be said to be a case wherein cross case is pending then the Magistrate should be given an opportunity of examining the matter afresh by looking into the report of the police as well as the investigation made by it and the complaint and the witnesses examined upon it before passing the order taking cognizance or otherwise. 3. This petition is accepted the order dated March 17th, 1990 is quashed. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Karauli is directed to consider the matter again in the light of the above observations.Petition accepted. *******