JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 1987, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa, whereby he set aside the order dated 19th March, 1985, passed by the Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui, in Criminal Complaint No. 129/1985. 2. The petitioner herein Janki Prasad lodged a report at the Police Station, Bandikui on 20th June, 1984 against non-petitioners No. 2 to 7, with regard to an incident which took place on 20th June, 1984, On receipt of this report, a criminal case No. 12 /1984 was registered at the Police Station Bandikui on the basis of the aforesaid FIR. As a result of investigation, the Police gave a final report on 31st August, 1984, which was accepted on 11th October, 1981, as on the basis of the Final Report it was found that no case under Sections 147, 336, and 447, IPC was made out. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Final Report was accepted by the Court without any notice to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner did not file any protest petition before the Court, but a complaint was filed on 13th November, 1984. On the basis of this complaint, after following the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 19th March, 1985 under Sections 147 , 447 and 336, IPC. Against this order dated 19th March, 1985, passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against all the six accused non-petitioners i.e. non-petitioners No 2 to 7, a Criminal Revision was preferred by these accused-non-petitioners. The Revision Petition No. 30/1985 was allowed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa (Jaipur) on 18th July, 1987. Aggrieved against this order dated 18th July, 1987, petitioner Janki Prasad, who was complainant, has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 3. It has been submitted by Shri Biri Singh, appearing for the petitioner, that the concerned Magistrate had the jurisdiction and competence to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 447 and 336, IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by him The Additional Sessions Judge has failed to understand correctly the import of the decision of this Court, to which a reference has been made in the impugned order dated 18th July, 1987. The Addl. The Addl. Sessions Judge made a reference to the decisions of this Court in Gopal Ram Bhabhada v. The State (Cr. L. R. Raj ) 1986, page 424 and Mst. Achna v. State of Rajasthan (Cr. L. R.) (Raj ) 1987, page 62 . Reference was also made to Dadam Chand v. The State of Rajasthan (Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 1987, page 315 ). There was a divergence of opinion in Gopal Rams case (supra) and Dadam Chands case (supra). He has also mentioned that Gopal Rams case was decided on 28th Jan., 1986 and Dadam Chands case (supra) was decided on 25th August, 1986. Dadam Chands case (supra) being latter in point of time, he has followed Dadam Chands case (supra; and relied upon yet another case in Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1979 WN UC 188 ) Referring to a case of the Supreme Court reported as Adhiniyam Jha v. Dinesh Mishra ( AIR 1968 SC 117 ), he has concluded that the Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance under Section 147, 447 and 336, IPC on the basis of the complaint which was filed before him after acceptance of the Final Report. 4. I have gone through the decisions referred to above and I find that all that has been decided in the case of Dadam Chand (supra) is that the Magistrate while passing an order with regard to the acceptance of final report discharges judicial function and as such the order is a judicial order and not an administrative order. The question which really falls for consideration is as to whether accepting an order with regard to acceptance or rejection of the final report to be a judicial order, whether the Magistrate can take cognizance in the same case on the basis of a complain which is filed after the acceptance of the final report. Therefore, the controversy does not end on the basis of the decision in Dadam Chands case (supra). What really falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed before him subsequent to the acceptance of the final report. 5. Therefore, the controversy does not end on the basis of the decision in Dadam Chands case (supra). What really falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed before him subsequent to the acceptance of the final report. 5. I have gone through the provisions of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, I find that in case even the final report is accepted and thereafter the Magistrate after following the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to a complaint which is filed before him, takes cognizance of the matter, there is no embargo against taking such cognizance for the simple reason that acceptance of the final report on the basis of police report is a different matter and, if on the basis of the complaint, the matter which is brought before him is convincing so as to take cognizance, it cannot be said that taking of such cognizance by him is bad solely because the final report has been accepted earlier, the rights of a private complainant cannot be made to subserve to the purpose of the material which is secured by the police. The complainant comes to the Court for redressal of his grievance in his own right on the basis of his complaint. If a case is made out for taking cognizance, such cognizance cannot be said to be illegal merely because the Magistrate had accepted the Final Report. Shri Yadav, appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners has cited before me the case of Patna High Court in Uma Shankar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981 Cr. L.J. NOC 118 (Patna) , in which reliance has been placed on 1978 Cr LJ 8(SC) and 1 78 Cr. L J. 187 (SC). Of course, a full report is not there before me, but from the NOC report, I find that in this case all (hat has been said is that after accepting the Final Report the Magistrate cannot go back to summon the accused on the basis of the protest petition. Such is not the case before me. The Magistrate has acted on the basis of the complaint which was filed before him. Complaint has separate and distinct status in comparison to summoning the accused on the basis of protest petition. Such is not the case before me. The Magistrate has acted on the basis of the complaint which was filed before him. Complaint has separate and distinct status in comparison to summoning the accused on the basis of protest petition. Therefore, Uma Shankar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (supra) is of no avail to the non-petitioner. Shri Biri Singh, on the other hand relied upon Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh & Ors. (1983 SCC (Cri) 110 , wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that acceptance of the final report is rot a bar for the Magistrate to take cognizance on a complaint merely on the ground that he had earlier declined to take cognizance on police report. Thus, the controversy which has been raised in this case has been fully resolved by the aforesaid judgment and I find that the Magistrate was very much within his competence to take cognizance against the accused. In this view of the matter, the order dated 18th July, 1987 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa is set aside. 6. The petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is allowed. The trial Court would now proceed against the accused non-petitioners on the basis of the order dated 19th March, 1985 by which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate against the accused-non-petitioners. The record of the case which was summoned in this case may be returned forthwith to the concerned court. *******