JUDGMENT D.K.Trivedi 1. By means of the present petition u/Sec. 482 of CrPC the petitioners challenged the order dated 28-10-1987 passed by IInd Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Faizabad, by which the Munsif Magistrate refused to accept the final report submitted by the Investigating agency and summoned the petitioners u/Sec. 307 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows ; The FIR was lodged on 14-7-1982 at 4:10 hours by one Smt. Anara Devi at P. S. Malipur, Disstt. Faizabad naming all the petitioners as accused. Therefore the case was registered u/Sec. 307 IPC. Smt. Anara Devi was medically examined on the same day at about 11 a.m. by the Medical Officer Incharge P. H. C. Jalalpur who found five gun shot injuries on her person. The ponce after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against all the accused persons who are the petitioners in this case. The petitioners had also moved an application before the Home Department of Govt. of U. P. for fresh investigation by the C.I D. and the Govt. of U. P. vide Government Order No. 52 of 1982, confidential-? directed the C.B. C.I.D. to make investigation. The C.B. C.I.D. had also sought the medicolegal opinion from the State Medicoligal expert namely Dr. K. K. Singhal, who had given bis report on 23-12-1985. According to Dr. K.. K. Singhal, injuries of injured Smt. Anara Devi were appeared to be manufactured one. The C.B. C.I.D. after completing the investigation submitted the final report in the court of the Munsif Magistrate. The complainant also moved a protest application before the court concerned praying that the final report submitted by the C.B. C.I.D. be rejected. The Munsif Magistrate after perusing the papers, submitted by the police as well as by the C.B. C.I.D., rejected the final report and had taken cognizance against the petitioners. The learned Munsif Magistrate summoned all the petitioners for the offence u/Sec. 307 IPC by order dated 28-10-1987. The petitioners filed the present petition challenging the said order, firstly on the ground that the accused were summoned without following the procedure of sections 200 and 202 CrPC, and secondly, it is alleged that from the careful perusal of the records of the case, it is clear that the evidence gathered by the C.B. C.I.D. shows that a case was concocted one and no such incident took place as alleged by Smt. Anara Devi. He relied merely on the opinion of Medico Legal expert who stated that the injuries of Smt Anara Devi appeared to be manufactured one. I have heared Shri Anand Mohan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Govt. Advocate at great length. 3. As regard to the first contention is concerned, the point is concluded by the decisian of the Honourable Supreme court in a case of M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 1989 SCC (Crl.) 306= 1989 CrLJ 963 and therefore, the said point has no substance. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a case reported in Beeran v. State of U. P., 1985 (22) ACC 116. In the said case it was held that if the police submitted the final report and the complainant moved a protest application then, the protest application be treated as complaint and the entire procedure of a complaint case has to be followed. 4. In view of the Supreme Court case M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 1989 SCC Crl. 306= 1989 CrLJ 963 , the law laid down in Case of Beeran v. State of U. P., 1985 (22) ACC 116 is in my opinion not good law. It is not necessary that if the protest application is moved by the complainant, then the Magistrate must act on the basis of the said protest application and follow procedure of the complaint case and record the statement of the complainant as well as others u/Secs. 200 and 202 CrPC before taking cognizance or summoning of the accused. If the report u/Sec. 169 of CrPC has been submitted by the police, then the Magistrate is fully empowered u/Sec. 190 (1) (b) of CrPC to summon the accused and take cognizance of the case straightway subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that he is satisfied from the perusal of the police papers that conclusion arrived at by the police is not correct and prima facie evidence is available against the accused persons. Secondly, if he has some doubts, then, it is also open to the Magistrate to reject the police report submitted u/Sec. 169 CrPC and treat the protest application as complaint but before treating the protest application as complaint, it is necessary to satisfy that the prosest application comprises of all the ingredients of the complaint. Secondly, if he has some doubts, then, it is also open to the Magistrate to reject the police report submitted u/Sec. 169 CrPC and treat the protest application as complaint but before treating the protest application as complaint, it is necessary to satisfy that the prosest application comprises of all the ingredients of the complaint. In that case, the Magistrate will follow the procedure of complaint case and statements of the witnesses u/Secs. 200 and 202 will have to be recorded by the Magistrate before taking cognizance of the case. The above mentioned preposition of law further finds support from the case of Zumman v. State of U. P., 1987 LLJ 285. In this case, it was held that if the Magistrate does not want to postpone issue of process then, he can take cognizance without following process prescribed u/Secs. 200 and 202 CrPC and the procedure prescribed u/Secs. 200 and 202 CrPC only came into play when the Magistrate does not satisfy with the police report and postpone issue of process of taking cognizance. In these circumstances, he has to follow the procedure prescribed u/Secs. 200 and 202 CrPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of its' contention relied upon a case of Bhagwan Das Agrawal v. State of U. P. 1990 JIC 24 in which this court took a view that the Magistrate was justified in taking proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed u/Sec. 200 and 202 CrPC. It may be pointed out that in the case of Bhagwan Das Agrawal v. State of U P., it was observed that the Magistrate has power to summon the accused straightway after rejecting the final report if prima facie case is made out from the material produced by the investigating agency. From the perusal of the facts of the case, it appears that the Magistrate after submission of the final report and receipt of the protest application, treated the protest application as complaint and proceeded with the case as complaint case. 6. In view of the facts stated above, this court took a view that the Magistrate committed no error in postponing the process and treating the protest application as complaint. 6. In view of the facts stated above, this court took a view that the Magistrate committed no error in postponing the process and treating the protest application as complaint. Secondly in the case of Bhagwan Das Agrawal v. State of U. P., the court found that on facts no case u/Sec. 395 IPC is made out, therefore, this court quashed the order of summoning of the accused, so far as it proceeded to summon the accused u/Sec. 395 IPC is concerned. IN view of the facts stated above this case can also of no help to the petitioners as in the instant case, the Magistrate summoned the accused straightway after rejecting the final report submitted by the police. The same principle will also apply if the Magistrate after receipt of the complaint by the complainant directs the police to investigate the offence and after receipt of the report from the police, the Magistrate again has power to summon the accused straightway u/Sec. 190 (1) (b) of CrPC or proceed on the basis of original complaint rejecting the police report. In the case of H. S. Bains, Director Small Saving Cum-Deputy Secretary Finance. Punjab, Chandigarh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 1981 SCC (Crl.) 93, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that : "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 that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings and drop the 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 make cognizance of the offence under section 190 (1) (b) 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 held or direct an enquiry under section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process as the case may be." 7. If he adopts the third alternative, he may held or direct an enquiry under section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process as the case may be." 7. On the second point also in my opinion, the present petition has no force because it cannot be said that there is no evidence to show that prima facie case is not made out. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the C.B. CI D. during investigation obtaned a report from the Medicolegal expert who submitted a report that the injuries of Smt Anara Devi, injured were appeared to be manufactured one. ON this basis, the petitioners' counsel stated that the magistrate committed an error in, rejecting the final report and summoning the accused be cause the evidence on the record shows that the injuries of Smt. Anara Devi are manufactured one. The said report is nothing else except the opinion of the doctor. It may be pointed out that the doctor who examined the injuries of injured Smt. Anara Devi just after the occurrence, found that the injuries of Smt. Anara Devi are gun shot injuries. Both the reports are opinion of the doctors and the same will be considered at the time of the trial. In any case at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no evidence on the record to prove that prima facie case is not made out against the accused persons. Honourable Supreme Court m a case Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna, AIR 1990 SC 494 , observed that ; "It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is malafide, frivolous, or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court."' 8. In view of the discussion as mentioned above, the present petition has no substance and is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 28-10-1987 is upheld. In view of the discussion as mentioned above, the present petition has no substance and is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 28-10-1987 is upheld. The learned Magistrate concerned is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously. Petition dismissed.