JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. Heard learned Counsel for applicants. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 24.3.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Budaun, by which the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer has not been accepted and cognizance of the offence has been taken. 3. Learned Counsel for applicants has submitted that on complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 the Court had already taken cognizance and the same is pending and the second cognizance could not be taken by the Court. Reliance has been placed on Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is being reported here: 210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.--(1) When in a case Instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry for trial held by him. that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the Investigating police officer u/s 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall Inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or If the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code. 4. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or If the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code. 4. From perusal of the provisions contained in Section 210 it appears that law contemplates that both proceedings can go together and in case report is made by the investigating officer u/s 173, and on such report cognizance has been taken against any person who...is an accused in the complaint case, can the magistrate proceed with the complaint case and the case arising out of a police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. in the present case during the pendency of the complaint case the Investigation by the police was also in progress in which a report has been submitted. On a protest petition and the objection filed, the magistrate has taken cognizance in both cases the Magistrate shall proceed u/s 210 as if both the cases were instituted on a police report in my opinion, there is no question of duplication of the cognizance as the cases will remain the same. 5. Learned Counsel for applicants has secondly submitted that affidavits have been filed along with the protest petition on which basis the cognizance could not be taken. Reliance has been placed u/s 296, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel. Section 296, Code of Criminal Procedure is permissive in nature. It provides that evidence of formal character may be given by affidavit. Sub-section (2) of Section 296, Code of Criminal Procedure further protects the interest that if any evidence has been given affidavit, the Court may at any stage, summon the deponent of the affidavit and may examine him on the facts contained in the affidavit. in view of this, even if affidavits have: been relied on, the applicants will not suffer any prejudice as the witnesses may be summoned. in view of this, even if affidavits have: been relied on, the applicants will not suffer any prejudice as the witnesses may be summoned. Further, the perusal of the order shows that it is not only the alleged affidavits which have been relied on for taking cognizance but the medical report and other material on record has also been referred and then the learned Magistrate has formed his opinion that in this case cognizance may be taken u/s 190(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The learned Counsel has thirdly submitted that while taking cognizance of the case on protest petition, the applicants should have been provided opportunity of hearing as held by this Court in case of Gajendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (XXXI) 1994 ACC 341, I have seriously considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and the view expressed in the judgment. However, I express my respectful disagreement with the view taken. The analogy adopted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das could not be applied at the stage of taking cognizance against accused as he is likely to get full opportunity of hearing during the trial. The facts of the present case are entirely different and as the applicants will have full opportunity for hearing during the trial, in my opinion, the hearing to accused at this stage could have led only to delay in trials and enquiries. The order does not suffer from any illegality. The revision has no force and is accordingly rejected.