JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It appears that petitioner Lekhraj lodged a F.I.R. at Police Station-Deeg on 8.3.1989 alleging that respondents No. 2 to 6 had committed offences under Sections 147, 323, 324, 379, 332 and 353, I.P.C. Due investigation was made and police submitted a challan against the accused-non- petitioners for offences under Sections 324 read with 34, I.P.C. Cognizance for offence under Section 324 read with 34, IPC, was taken by the Magistrate against the accused- persons on 13.6.1990. 3. Petitioner Lekhraj was aggrieved by the investigation and filed a protest petition under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. on 28.6.1990, wherein he requested the learned Magistrate to take cognizance against the accused persons for offences under Sections 323, 353, 379, 326 and 147, IPC. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the sides, granted the request of the complainant and took cognizance for offences under Sections 147 and 326, IPC, against Dwarka Prasad, and for offences under Sections 147, 326/323/149, IPC, against Nand Kishore, Veer Narain, Ratan Lal and Rameshwar. He also directed issue of bailable warrants to procure the arrest of the accused persons. Aggrieved, the accused persons filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, which was disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, by order dated 2.7.1993. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance for offence under Sections 147 and 326, IPC, against Dwarka Prasad and for offences under Sections 147, 326/323/149, IPC. against the Kishore, Veer Narain, Ratan Lal and Rameshwar. He, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved, the complainant has come to this Court. 4. After having heard the parties, I am of the view that when a protest petition had been lodgd by Lekhraj, learned Magistrate was bound to proceed under the provisions of Chapter XV relating to complaints to Magistrate. He could not straightaway take cognizance on the mere application of the complainant for offences under Sections 147 and 326, IPC, against Dwarka Prasad and for offences under Sections 147, 326/323/149, IPC, against Nand Kishore, Veer Narain, Ratan Lal and Rameshwar. He could not have adopted this course inasmuch as the material on the basis of which cognizance has been taken, was the self same on which subsequently the learned Magistrate took cognizance by the impugned order. He could not have adopted this course inasmuch as the material on the basis of which cognizance has been taken, was the self same on which subsequently the learned Magistrate took cognizance by the impugned order. I am supported my view by an authority of this Court reported in Ram Chandra Meena v. State of Rajasthan (1990 R.C.C. 180) . However, the matter does not end there, the learned Magistrate was bound to adopt the procedure pertaining to complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.RC. upon the complaint made by the complainant. Such a course was open to him and he ought to have resorted to the same. In Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha & Others [ 1982(3) S.C.C. 510 ) a view was expressed that a Magistrate refusing to take cognizance on a police report, was entitled to take cognizance upon a complain and the High Court was in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take cognizance in a case upon a complaint because he had earlier refused to take cognizance in a case on a police report. 5. The Law required the learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. relating to complaints to Magistrate and if the Magistrate thought after taking the evidence of the complainant in and the witnesses that a case for cognizance for certain offences was made out against the accused-petitioners, he could have taken recourse to provisions of Section 204 of Cr.P.C. pertaining to issue of process and then could have followed the procedure laid down in Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. In my opinion, this was the course with ought to have been followed in the present case by the learned Magistrate. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance straightaway on the complaint of the complainant is set aside but he may proceed on the complaint of the complainant in accordance with the provisions of law indicated above. 6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. *******