JUDGMENT 1. - Petition raises a short issue in the following circumstances. On 26-7-88 complainant Shri Jan Mohd. lodged an FIR at P.S. Makrana against the petitioner-accused. After investigation the police submitted a final report On 13-6-88 against the submission of final report by the police, the complainant lodged a protest report before the Magistrate. After recording of statements of Jan Mohd, Complainant Sabir Ahmed and Abdul Aziz the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioners under Sections 147, 447 and 323 Indian Penal Code It is against that order dated 10-1-89 this petition has been filed. 2. The only contention raised before me is that when the Investigating Agency has submitted a final report, no cognizance could have been taken by ignoring the final report and without assigning the reasons for not accepting the final report. Learned Public Prosecutor states that from the order it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the material that has come on the record during investigation and therefore the order cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity for want of consideration of report submitted by the Investigating Agency. 3. It is consistent view of this court that the report as well as material attached to report the Magistrate has to consider and then arrive at its conclusion as to why he accepts or rejects the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and why he intends to take cognizance against the accused inspite of final report. In this connection reference may be made to Jagdish Ram v. State of Raj., 1988 (2) RLR 486 wherein this court after taking notice of dates of earlier decisions of this court and other courts came to the conclusion that in such a case: "that the material placed on record for the perusal of the court has to be a considered and then he is to arrive at a particular conclusion why he accepts or rejects the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and why he intends to take cognizance." 4. That was the view expressed by a learned Single Judge of this court in unreported judgment in Vikram Singh and Anr. That was the view expressed by a learned Single Judge of this court in unreported judgment in Vikram Singh and Anr. v. State, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 119/86 decided on 1-7-87 in which the court has held as under: "that if the F R. was before the learned Magistrate it was expected of him to critically examined the final report as well as the contents of the charge-sheet and then arrive at the conclusion as to why he attaches more weight to the contents in the charge-sheet in comparison to the contents of the final report." 5. The Apex Court in Sampt Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, 1993 (1) SCC 561 said about dealing with a report under Section 173 as under: "when an investigation culminates into a final report as contemplated under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code then the competent court enjoins a duty within its authority sanctioned by law to scrupulously scrutinise the final report and the accompaniments by applying its judicial mind and take a decision either to accept or reject the final report." 6. From the perusal of the order under consideration it is apparent that while the learned Judge has referred to injury report and statements of Jan Mohd, Sabir Mohd and Abdul Aziz available on the record of investigation if has not considered, the conclusions arrived at by investigating agency and has applied its mind to the question why the final report submitted mated by investigating agency is not acceptable. In the absence of such consideration, in my opinion the order cannot be sustained and has to be quashed. 7. As a result of, petition is allowed, the order passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, I-Class. Makrana, dated 10-1-89 is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the Muniff Magistrate. Makrana to proceed in accordance with law. *******