ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) A very unusual order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh (in short, 'sdjm') in the subject-matter of challenge in this application. By impugned order learned SDJM has directed for issue of summons to the petitioner who was informant in GR case No. 132 of 1992. Cognizance of an offence punishable under S. 409 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') was taken. ( 2 ) FACTUAL position, almost undisputed, is as follows :-ON the basis of written report submitted by petitioner, acting as power of attorney holder of M/s. Priya Gas Sales and Services, Bargarh to the effect that 302 empty Gas cylinders, 6 full and 3 defective gas cylinders kept inside gas godown at Satyam on 6-3-1992 under lock and key were stolen from the gas godown, at Bargarh. Police Station, Bargarh P. S. Case No. 50 of 1992 was registered and investigation was undertaken. Final report submitted by the officer-in-charge was to the effect that facts disclosed commission of offence under Ss. 457 and 360, I. P. C. but there was no clue as to the offencer. Learned SDJM was of the view that there was sufficient material to hold that the informant had lodged false allegation of theft of gas cylinders which were entrusted to him by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the dealer with a view to commit criminal breach of trust. Accordingly he passed the order which is impugned. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to petitioner the course adopted by learned SDJM is unknown in law. He has made presumptuous conclusions about the informant having lodged a false information. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned SDJM has passed order which though unusual, is intended to bring the real culprit to book. ( 4 ) THE course available to a Magistrate on receipt of a report to the effect that no offence appears to have been committed are as follows :- (I) He may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding; (ii) He may take cognizance of offence under S. 190 (b), Cr. P. C. on the basis of police report and issue process. P. C. on the basis of 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; and (iii) He may take cognizance of offence under S. 190 (1), Cr. P. C. on the basis of original complaint and proceed to examine the complainant and his witnesses under S. 202, Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) THE case at hand is one where informant has come under scrutiny. Clause (c) of Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 190 refers to information received from any person other than a police officer. It obviously means such information must be such as does not constitute a complaint or a police report. The clause applies only to the case where private individual who is injured or aggrieved of summons on his part does not come forward to make a formal complaint. It is a provision of law for enabling a public official to take care that justice may be vindicated notwithstanding the persons individually aggrieved are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Basic distinction between information under Cl. (c) and complaint under Cl. (a) is that a Magistrate acts on a complaint because the complainant has made a request to act, but in the case of information, a Magistrate acts of his own accord and initiative. The Magistrate deciding not to take cognizance or drop the proceeding against a person mentioned in the F. I. R. has to give notice and hear informant. In the case at hand, perusal of the order shows that learned Magistrate has proceeded on suspicion that informant has lodged FIR with oblique motive. He has assumed that motive may be to get insurance money. Material collected during investigation does not show that any party pointed on accusing finger at the petitioner. There is not even shadow of material even to lend support to conclusion of learned SDJM that whole thing was faked to cover breach of trust. ( 6 ) AS observed by apex Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 and by this Court in Srinibas Balabantaray v. Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore (1990) 1 Cut LR 179 conjoint reading of Ss. 156 (3), 169, 173 and 190, Cr. P. C. makes it clear that there is no power expressly or impliedly conferred under Cr. 156 (3), 169, 173 and 190, Cr. P. C. makes it clear that there is no power expressly or impliedly conferred under Cr. P. C. on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit chargesheet, when they send a report under S. 169, that there is no case made out for sending upon the accused for trial. Functions of Magistracy and police are entirely different, and Magistrate cannot impinge upon jurisdiction of police by compelling them to change their opinion so as to accord with his view. However, he is not deprived of power to proceed with the matter. There is no obligation on the Magistrate to accept the report if he does not agree with opinion formed by police. Power to take cognizance notwithstanding formation of opinion by police is final stage in the investigation has been provided for in S. 190 (1) (c ). Where a report forwarded by police to a Magistrate under S. 173 (2) (i) is placed before him, several situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person and persons, and in such a case the Magistrate may either (i) accept report and take cognizance of offence and issue process, or, (ii) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or, (iii) may direct further investigation under S. 156 (3) and require police to make further report. The report may on the other hand state that according to police no offence appears to have been committed. When such a report is placed before the Magistrate, he has again an option to adopt one of the three causes, i. e. (i) he may accept or drop the proceeding, (ii) he may disagree with the report and take a view that there is sufficient ground for further proceeding to take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by police under S. 156 (3 ). Section 173 (2) (i) (d) provides that the report may state whether any offence appears to have been committed and if so by whom. As in the instant case, the report may be to the effect that an offence has been committed without any material to show as to who is the offender. In the case at hand, accusation related to offence punishable under Ss. As in the instant case, the report may be to the effect that an offence has been committed without any material to show as to who is the offender. In the case at hand, accusation related to offence punishable under Ss. 457 and 380, IPC, but learned SDJM took cognizance of offence punishable under S. 409 IPC. There is absolutely no material to show existence of ingredients essential to constitute such an offence. There is no grievance by any body of breach of trust. It is not a case where there is any material to show that the aggrieved and affected person is either unwilling or unable to prosecute. If the learned Magistrate felt that there was any deficiency in investigation, he could have directed investigation in terms of S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Instead of doing that he jumped into presumption conclusions. Order dt. 23-11-1993 passed in GR Case No. 132 of 1992 is accordingly set aside. The Criminal Misc. case is disposed of. Order accordingly.