Order The petitioner has filed the present application for quashing the order dated 10.7.1989 passed by Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur taking cognizance under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and issuing process against the petitioner. 2. It appears from the record that Vijay Kumar Sinha, Customs Inspector (Preventive) of Birpur lodged the first information report with regard to murder of Brij Raghav Choubey. The police after investigation submitted a final form saying a mistake of facts and thereafter the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate by order dated 8.4.1987 accepted the final report. On 19.10.1987, the mother of the deceased Shail Kumari Chaturbedi filed a petitiol1 before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate stating that the investigation was not properly conducted and necessary action may be taken against the accused petitioner. Thereafter, learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate after considering the material on the record has passed the impugned order taking cognizance. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that once the final report was accepted by the Court, it was not justified in taking cognizance on the basis of the same very materials and accordingly the order taking cognizance is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the other side contended that the order dated 8.4.1987 accepting the final report without notice to the informant was not in accordance with law. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in ( AIR 1985 SC 1285 ) where it has been laid down that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop by a proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the accused persons mentioned in the first information report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. 5. I have perused the order dated 8.4.1987. The final report was accepted without notice to the informant and accordingly the aforesaid order is bad in law. In view of said legal defect said order and subsequent orders in the case are vitiated in law. 6. 5. I have perused the order dated 8.4.1987. The final report was accepted without notice to the informant and accordingly the aforesaid order is bad in law. In view of said legal defect said order and subsequent orders in the case are vitiated in law. 6. Accordingly, I set aside the aforesaid order dated 8.4.1987 and the subsequent order including the impugned order and remit back the matter to the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate who will consider the matter afresh and pass an order in accordance with law on the final report. Before passing any order on the final report he will issue notice to the informant as well as the mother of the deceased and after hearing the parties will dispose of the matter. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate for fresh decision in accordance with direction as mentioned above.