D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this application filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the informant has assailed the revisional order dated 16-1-1992 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 1991 quashing the cognizance taken by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak under Sections 506 / 34, I. P. C. in G. R. Case No. 1060 of 1990. ( 2 ) THE factual backdrop of the case that emerges on perusal of the application and the lower court records, may be short stated thus: on the report of the petitioner, the station diary entry bearing No. 79 of 1990 was made with regard to the occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 3-6-1990. Since the police did not take any action in the matter, the petitioner made a complaint before the learned S. D. J. M. , Bhadrak who sent it to the police for investigation under Sec. 156 (3), Cr. P. C. On investigation the police submitted final form under S. 173, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate registered G. R. Case No. 1060 of 1990 and by order dated 14-11-1990 directed issue of notice to the informant for appearance. Thereafter a petition was filed by the informant requesting the Magistrate not to accept the final report on which the learned Magistrate by his order dated 15-12-1990 called for the case diary from the investigating Officer and posted the case to 15-2-1991 for consideration of the protest petition. A petition was filed by the Advocate appearing for the informant to record the statements of some of the witnesses named in the complaint petition under S. 164, Cr. P. C. The learned S. D. J. M. directed the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, to recoord 164 statements of the PWs. The 164 statements of the witnesses were duly recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class on 20-3-1991 and the case record was sent to the S. D. J. M. Thereafter by order dated 22-3-1991, the learned S. D. J. M. took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 506/34, I. P. C. The order reads as follows:--"perused the F. I. R. , C. D. and statements of witnesses recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. and also perused the protest petition filed by the informant. From the above documents, I find strong prima facie case against the accused persons under Ss. 506/34, I. P. C. The order reads as follows:--"perused the F. I. R. , C. D. and statements of witnesses recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. and also perused the protest petition filed by the informant. From the above documents, I find strong prima facie case against the accused persons under Ss. 506 / 34, I. P. C. Hence, cognizance taken under Ss. 506 /34, I. P. C. against all the accused persons. Put up on 25-3-1991 for further orders. " ( 3 ) AGAINST the cognizance order passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , the accused persons filed Criminal Revision No. 41 of 1991 which was disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned order. The revisional court allowed the revision petition and set aside the cognizance order. On perusal of the order it appears that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after taking note of the three alternative courses which were available to the Magistrate on receiving the police report under S. 173 (1), Cr. P. C. held that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence under S. 190 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. on the basis of the original complaint without following the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the cognizance order was vitiated. He expressed his views in the following words:"after receiving the final report the court did not take cognizance then and there as stated above in the second alternative. Had he taken cognizance immediately after receiving the final report, the contention of the opposite parties could have been accepted. Here, the S. D. J. M. resorted the Chapter XV which comes under third category of recourse mentioned above. But proper procedures have not been followed by the S. D. J. M. as without examining the complainant himself and conducting enquiry, he sent the case to another Magistrate for recording statements of witnesses under S. 164, Cr. P. C. which is not an enquiry within the ambit of under S. 202, Cr. P. C. and just after receiving record, he took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners on 22-3-1991 making under S. 164, Cr. P. C. statement as its basis. P. C. which is not an enquiry within the ambit of under S. 202, Cr. P. C. and just after receiving record, he took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners on 22-3-1991 making under S. 164, Cr. P. C. statement as its basis. " ( 4 ) THE position is well settled that after receipt of the police report after investigation under Section 156 (3) the Magistrate may do one of three things; he decides that there is no sufficient ground, for proceeding further and drop action; (2) take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (b) on the basis of the police report without being bound in any manner by the conclusion of the police report and issue process; (3) take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon both the complainant and his witnesses, M. S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of' Chandigarh]. The position has also to be taken as well settled that the Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers under S. 190 (1) (b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Ss. 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under S. 190 (1) (a) though it is open to him to act under S. 200 or S. 202 also 1989 Cri LJ 963, M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka]. ( 5 ) INDEED, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has indicated the position in paragraph 4 of his order. Therefore the question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate passed the cognizance order on the basis of the report submitted by the police under S. 173 (1), Cr. P. C. or on the basis of the original complaint. Concededly the learned Magistrate on receiving the complaint from the informant, directed an investigation by the police and in pursuance of the said order the police investigated into the case and submitted its report under S. 173 (2), Cr. P. C. stating the case to be a false one. P. C. or on the basis of the original complaint. Concededly the learned Magistrate on receiving the complaint from the informant, directed an investigation by the police and in pursuance of the said order the police investigated into the case and submitted its report under S. 173 (2), Cr. P. C. stating the case to be a false one. On receipt of the said report the learned Magistrate issued notice to the informant, who filed a protest petition urging him not to accept the final report submitted by the police. Before taking a decision in the matter on the prayer of the informant to record the statements of some of the PWs under S. 164, Cr. P. C. , the learned S. D. J. M. directed the Judicial magistrate, Ist Class to record the statements which the latter complied. Thereafter on consideration of the police report, the protest petition, the papers available in the case diary and the statements recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. , the learned Magistrate passed the cognizance order. From the case record there is no indication whatsoever that the learned Magistrate at any stage considered the proceeding to be one based on the complaint petition filed by the informant. ( 6 ) THE question that remains to be considered is whether it can be said that the learned Magistrate took recourse to Section 190 (1) (a), simply because he considered the statements recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. In my view, the answer will be in the negative. To hold otherwise, will be to take too technical a view of the matter. If on receipt of the final report under Section 173 (2), the Magistrate disagrees with the opinion of the police which he is entitled to do, it is open to him to direct the police to make further investigation under S. 156 (3), Cr. P. C. and he may also hold enquiry or get it held by any other subordinate Magistrate for taking cognizance under S. 190 (1) (b), Pancham Singh v. The State and AIR 1978 Patna 298 : (1978 Cri LJ 1575) (SB), Kuli Singh v. State of Bihar]. In that view of the matter it will not be correct to say that the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance under S. 190 (1) (b) merely because he considered the statements recorded under S. 164, Cr. In that view of the matter it will not be correct to say that the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance under S. 190 (1) (b) merely because he considered the statements recorded under S. 164, Cr. P. C. Further, the cognizance order reveals that the learned Magistrate has not based his order merely on 164 statements, but has considered other materials available in the case diary and also the protest petition filed by the informant. It is therefore clear that he took cognizance of the offence upon the police report as provided under S. 190 (1) (b) and not upon the complaint petition under S. 190 (1) (a ). In this connection it will be helpful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Titilagarh v. Jayashankar Mund, reported in (1989) 67 Cut LT 426 : (1989 Cri LJ 1578) wherein it was observed that even though a protest petition is in the nature of a complainant, it is referable to the investigation already held by the vigilance police culminating in the final report and because the informant was not examined on solemn Affirmation under S. 202 of the Code, thereby no illegality or prejudice was caused to the accused. If such a view is accepted and there is no reason why such a view should not be accepted, the necessary consequence in this particular case shall be that the protest petition which is of the nature of a complaint petition filed by the petitioner shall be in continuation and in respect of the case instituted and investigated by the vigilance police. This Court further observed that in case the informant disputes the final report and files a protest petition, it is open to the Judicial Magistrate to consider the materials available in the case diary, as well as protest petition either for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence or otherwise. If such a procedure is permissible, it does not stand to reason that the protest petition when filed though of the nature of complaint petition shall stand completely dissociated from the record of investigation. On the other hand, both have to be considered in harmony so that as a first step to find out truth the court will enable itself to take cognizance of the offence. On the other hand, both have to be considered in harmony so that as a first step to find out truth the court will enable itself to take cognizance of the offence. This position was considered by the Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party, in the case of Srinibas Balabantaray v. Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore, reported in (1990) 69 Cut LT 175, in which similar view has been taken. ( 7 ) ON the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I unhesitatingly hold that the Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in setting aside the cognizance order passed by the sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, this application is allowed; the revisional order passed on 16-1-1992 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 1991 is set aside and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak is directed to proceed with G. R. case No. 1060 of 1990 in accordance with law. Order accordingly.