JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482, G.P.C. against the order dated 26.4.1989 passed by Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh in Criminal Case No. 83/86 and the judgment dated 29.5.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Alwar District, Alwar in Criminal Revision No. 83/86 whereby the Court took cognizance for offence under Section 323, I.P.C. against the petitioner. Shri Narendra Kumar, complainant (respondent) had filed a F.I.R. against the present petitioner; Mahesh Chand Jain on 6.3.1986. He also filed a private complaint thereafter on 26.4.1986 against the present petitioner in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh for the same offence stating that the police is not taking any action in the matter. 2. Shri Bhargava has submitted that on 26.4.1986 the police had given F.R. (Final Report) in this case under Section 173, Cr.P.C. after investigation and according to him this F.R. had also been accepted by the Court later on. Once; the F.R. as was given by the police had been accepted by the Court, the Court could not have thereafter taken cognizance on the basis of the private complaint filed by the complainant. The aforesaid facts as have been given out by the learned counsel for the petitioner make it very clear that the complainant had filed the private complaint on 26.4.1986 that is the very date on which the F.R. as was given by the police had been accepted by the Court although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to state as to whether the court had passed the order accepting the F.R. on 26.4.1986 after hearing the complainant or otherwise. 3. Be that as it may, it is very clear that the complaint was filed on 26.4.1986 and the order dated 26.4.1989 was passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh and he must have passed this order on being satisfied that prima-facie a case under Section 323, I.P.C. was made out on the basis of the statement which had been recorded by the Court under Section 200, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I do not find that there was any impediment against the Magistrate for taking cognizance on a private complaint even after the acceptance of the F.R. as was given by the police with regard to the same offence. 4. 4. Shri Bhargava has invited my attention in the first instance to the provisions of Section 210, Cr.P.C. but, I am of the opinion that there is no such impediment in the provisions of Section 210, Cr.P.C. On the face of the provisions of Section 210, Cr.P.C. the order dated 26.4.1989 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Laxr_,angarh is un-,assailable. Shri Bhargava then cited before me Ashok Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan ( 1990 (2) RLR 29 = 1990 RCC 366) . In this case the F.R. had been given by the police under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and a protest petition had also been filed by the complainant. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the private complaint without considering the result of the police report. Thus, it was a case in which the F.R. as was given by the police had not been considered and the cognizance was taken on the basis of the private complaint without considering the F.R. as was given by the police. In my opinion, this judgment is, therefore, of no avail to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. Shri Bhargava next placed reliance on Smt. Aruna Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan (1991 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 90) . In this case also the Magistrate did not examine the complaint and record, did not consider the F.R. as was filed by the police and, therefore, the Court held that the order taking cognizance of the offence was without jurisdiction. This judgment is not at-all applicable to the facts of the present case. Shri Bhargava then cited before me Dedamchand Vs. The State of Rajasthan ( 1987 (1) RLR 106 = 1987 (1) WLN 69 . In this case the police report was accepted on 6.12.1978 that the offence was not made out against the petitioner. Later on an order was passed on 31.5.1982 taking congnizance. It appears that in the facts of this case the challan had not been filed against Dedamchand but, even after the acceptance of the F.R. as had been given by the police on 6.12.1978, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted an application thereafter as if it was a private complaint for taking the cognizance and the learned Magistrate thereupon passed the order dated 315.1982 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 490, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, Dadamchand. The facts of the case at hand are entirely different inasmuch as in the present case the cognizance has been taken on the basis of a private complaint filed seperately by the complainant himself after the acceptance of the F.R. as was given by the police whereas, in Dadamchand's case the complainant had not filed any separate application to the Court but, the learned Public Prosecutor himself had moved an application for taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner; although, the F.R. as was given by the police had already been accepted on 6.12.1978. 5. Thus, the law laid down in any of these three cases does not even touch the fringes of the point which arises for consideration in the present case. Each and every case has to be decided on its own facts. 6. I do not find any force in this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and there is no case worth interference under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******