Judgment N.PANDEY, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order, dated 23-2-1991, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah, whereby he has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. A letter, purported to have been written by one Smt. Anar Devi, was received by the District and Sessions Judge , Nawadah, in which it was mentioned that the informant was kidnapped by the petitioner and she was still under confinement along with six other ladies. The said letter was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah, who perused the contents of the letter and by his order, dated 7-5-1990 sent the same in original to the Office-Incharge, Nawadah, for instituting a case and to investigate. The police after investigation, submitted a final report, as the case being false. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereafter, perused the case diary and the statements of the witnesses. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, held that there was sufficient evidence in the case diary against the petitioner. He did not agree with the final report, submitted by the police. In the impugned order he has discossed about the statements of the witnesses in detail. Considering the entire materials, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah, took cognizance under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and further held that there was no evidence against the son of the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the police after thorough investigation has found the case maliciously false. The case was also supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police and both of them came to a definite conclusion that the case was absolutely false. There was no material in the case diary on the basis of which the learned Magistrate could take cognizance. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is a doctor and a man of old age and, therefore, it was not expected from him to commit such an offence. According to the learned Counsel the informant is a lady of easy virtue. He has further submitted that the letter in question was not sent by the lady in question rather it was sent by one Parsuram Singh. 4. According to the learned Counsel the informant is a lady of easy virtue. He has further submitted that the letter in question was not sent by the lady in question rather it was sent by one Parsuram Singh. 4. After having heard the learned Counsel on the aforesaid question, I have myself perused the impugned order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has referred the names of several witnesses and different paragraphs of the case diary in order to indicate that these witnesses have supported the prosecution story. It is well settled that the final report, submitted by the police, as the case being false, is not binding on the Magistrate. True it is that the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police have also opend that the case was false. There is no obligation on the part of Chief Judicial Magistrate, to accept report of the police, if he did not agree with the opinion, formed by the police. Upon consideration of the material, if the learned Magistrate was satisfied that an offence has been committed, he was perfectly justified in taking cognizance, while differing with the police report. 5. In the ease of H. S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) (A. I. R. 1980 SC 1883) their Lordships have held as follows : "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 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 cognizancle of the offence under Section 190 (1) (a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complaint and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 2G2 if he thinks fit. Thereafter, he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be." 6. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 2G2 if he thinks fit. Thereafter, he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be." 6. Yet again in Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2401) a closely analogous question namely, whether or not a Magistrate, after receiving a complaint and after directing investigation under Section 158 (3) of the Code, in which the police filed a final report that no offence was made out, could still proceed to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint and the statements of witnesses made in support thereof. After exhaustive discussion of principle and precedent, their Lordships, laid down the following proposition : "4. Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police before taking cognizance under Section 156 (3) of the Code and receives the report thereupon he can act on the report and discharge the accused or straightway issue process against the accused or apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action under Section 190 as described above." 7. To conclude with the argument of the learned Counsel, posed above, it is held that a Magistrate even after accepting the final report, can still take cognizance of the offence if there are materials available in the case diary. The next contention of the learned Counsel was that on the basis of a petition, having been filed on behalf of the informant, Cr. W. J. C. No. 156 of 1990 was registered before this Court. In the aforesaid case the prayer was made that Smt. Anar Devi has been illegally detained by the petitioner, therefore, was prayed that direction be issued to the petitioner to release Smt. Anar Devi. Ultimately on 10-12-1990 it was brought to the notice of this Court that the police after investigation has found the case to be false. On that day nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The relevant part of the aforesaid order is as follows : "In view of the aforesaid investigation report submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was accepted, this case does not require any further investigation. The application is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution as also it has no merit." 8. On that day nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The relevant part of the aforesaid order is as follows : "In view of the aforesaid investigation report submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was accepted, this case does not require any further investigation. The application is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution as also it has no merit." 8. According to the learned Counsel, since this Court in a writ jurisdiction, after noticing that the police has submitted final report, dismissed the writ petition, as there was no merit in the circumstances thereof it was not open to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance on the basis of the said police report. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel of great length on the aforesaid subject, I have also perused a copy of the order-sheet of the aforesaid writ petition, which has been annexed and marked as Annexure-7 to this petition. At the very outset I may observe that at no point of time final report in this case was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, there was no occasion for their Lordships to mention in the order that the final report has been accepted. It appears that on account of wrong submission of certain facts or on account of confusion their Lordships have noticed in the order that the final form has been accepted. Even the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also accepted that at no point of time the final report was accepted. In the circumstances, mentioned above, there appears to be no substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on this count also. The third and last submission of the learned Counsel was that it would appear from the order, dated 7-5-1990 that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had perused the application/letter of the informant which was sent to him by the District and Sessions Judge. According to him, this perusal amounts to taking cognizance and, therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to send the case before the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for instituting a case and to investigate. In support of the aforesaid he has referred to a case of N. K. Agrawal v. State of Bihar (Cr. W. J. C. No. 500 of 1990). In support of the aforesaid he has referred to a case of N. K. Agrawal v. State of Bihar (Cr. W. J. C. No. 500 of 1990). In the aforesaid it was argued that the case of the complainant was registered and the Magistrate after perusal of the same, fixed up for the next date for examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation. It was submitted that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance on the complaint and he had simply decided to examine the Complainant on solemn affirmation on the following day. That being the position, there was no need to pass an order on 10-9-1990 sending the petition to the police for registering a case and to investigate. In support of the aforesaid reference has also been made to a well-known judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 2401 (supra). 10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, their Lordships quashed the order, whereby the complaint was sent before the police for investigation. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the moment the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate perused the Complaint it, amounts that he has already taken cognizance, therefore, all the subsequent orders, directing the police to institute a case and to investigate and thereafter, taking cognizance, becomes illegal and ab initio void. 11. In my view, there is no substance in the aforesaid submission as well. Simply because the learned Magistrate has perused the complaint it can not be said that he had taken cognizance. In the case of Gopald Das Sindhi v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 986 it was held as follows : "11. It would be clear from the observations of Mr. Justice Das Gupta that when a Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the various sections of Chapter XVI but for taking action of some other kind e.g. ordering investigation under Section 156 (3) or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence." Similar view was taken in the case of Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Sah AIR 1964 SC 1541 . In the aforesaid judgment their Lordships have held as follows : "12. In the aforesaid judgment their Lordships have held as follows : "12. It is well settled now that when on a petition of complaint being filed before him a Magistrate applies his mind for proceeding under the various provisions of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be held to have taken cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint. When however he applied his mind not for such purpose but for purposes of ordering investigation under Section 156 (3) or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence." 12. All the aforesiid questions were also considered in AIR 1977 SC 2401 (supra). In the aforesaid judgment also their Lordships have held that when a Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of taking cognizance but for the purpose of ordering investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code Criminal Procedure or for issuing search warrant, it cannot be said that the Magistrate had taken cognizance. 13. In the circumstances, mentioned above, I find no substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel. It is held that in the present case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has perused the petition on 7-5-1990 not for the purpose of taking cognizance, but for the purposes of ordering investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the same does not amount to taking cognizance. In the circumstances, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is fit to be dismissed. 14. However, I have taken notice of certain facts, argued before me by the learned Counsel that the letter itself, on the basis of which the case has been registered, was not sent by Smt. Anar Devi but by somebody else. He has further argued that the police officials have found that somebody else was behind the certain and at his instance the case was being prosecuted. In fact Anar Devi was not interested. It has been also stated that the doctor is an old man and it was not possible for him to indulge into such an offence. However, these matters, in my view, cannot be considered by the High Court at this stage. In fact Anar Devi was not interested. It has been also stated that the doctor is an old man and it was not possible for him to indulge into such an offence. However, these matters, in my view, cannot be considered by the High Court at this stage. It wil be open to the petitioner to raise all such questions at the time of framing of charges and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 15. In the result, with the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed.