O. P. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case no. 684/91, under sections 380/506 I. P. C. and the summoning order dated 11. 3. 1991 passed by VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Sisaman District Kanpur Nagar. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant no. 1 Bhagwan Prasad Trivedi and respondent no. 2 Han Prasad Trivedi are real brothers and are residing in separate portions of the same house. The respondent no. 2 lodged a first information report on 21. 3. 1990 against the present applicants in which he alleged that on 20. 3. 1990 at about 8. 30 P. M. Bhagwan Prasad Trivedi and his wife and applicant Dinesh Kumar took away some article worth Rs. 16,000/- from the possession of Han Prasad Trivedi after breaking open his lock, it was also alleged that Han Prasadts wife objected to it but the applicants threatened her. The copy of F. I. R. is Annexure 3 to the petition. ( 3 ) THE police submitted a final report on 31. 3. 1990 on the ground the petition suit is already pending between the applicants and the case is instituted after exaggerating the facts the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the protest petition filed by Han Prasad Trivedi on 21. 2. 1991 passed an order on 11. 3. 1991 summoning the accused for 25. 4. 1991. The summoning order is Annexure 6 to the petition. ( 4 ) IN this case counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and final argument of both the sides were heard. ( 5 ) THE first contention on behalf of the applicants was that the police had submitted a negative report and, therefore, cognizance could not have been taken; but this contention is wrong because it has been held in M/s. India Garat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another in which it has been held that a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under section 190 (1 ) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. It was further held that the Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in section 200 and 202 Cr. It was further held that the Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in section 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. though it is open to him to act under section 200 or 202 Cr. P. C. also. ( 6 ) THE second contention is that admittedly applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are real brothers and a partition suit is pending between them. Therefore, it is a case of civil nature and no criminal case is made out. This contention has no force and the mere fact that a civil suit between the parties is pending does not unnecessarily exclude the jurisdiction of criminal courts. For the exercise of powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. the contents of the F. I. R. should be presumed to be true. It was alleged by the complainant that the articles taken away by the present applicants were in the exclusive possession of respondent no. 2 if respondent no. 2 succeeds in proving this allegation the matter assumes criminal nature. ( 7 ) THE third contention is that before issuing the summoning order the Magistrate has not given any reason as to why he has differed from the conclusion arrived at by the police. In my opinion, for taking cognizance the Magistrate is not required to give detailed reasons. The order dated 11. 3. 1993 Annexure 6 to the petition shows that after perusing the statement of the complainant the Magistrate was satisfied that it is a fit case for taking cognizance. ( 8 ) THE last contention is that the learned Magistrate issued motive to the complainant as required by Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner but no notice was given to the accused who are applicants here. In this connection the learned counsel for the applicants has relied on Ganendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of UP. in which a single Judge of this Court has held that once a final report was fled it will be unfair to hear only the person filing the protest petition but not the accused. The learned Judge has further observed that both the parties should be heard as that procedure would be fair to the accused and complainant. in which a single Judge of this Court has held that once a final report was fled it will be unfair to hear only the person filing the protest petition but not the accused. The learned Judge has further observed that both the parties should be heard as that procedure would be fair to the accused and complainant. On the basis of this ruling the learned counsel for the applicants has argued that it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to have issued notice to the accused before taking cognizance. ( 9 ) IN my opinion the ruling relied, upon by the learned counsel does not apply to the facts of the case because the summoning order Annexure 6 clearly shows that the, Magistrate has not taken cognizance merely on the final report submitted by the police. Before taking cognizance the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the complainant and has also relied on the affidavit submitted by the complainant. The summoning order does not say that cognizance is being taken under section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. Under the circumstances of the case decision of the apex court in Chandra Deo Singh v. P. C. Bose is applicable in which it has been held that an accused person does not come into the picture at all till process is issued. This ruling is cited in Gajendra Kumar Agarwals case. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion it cannot be said that the summoning order dated 11. 3. 1991 is either illegal or without jurisdiction. However, it is clear that the Magistrate has proceeded in the matter on complaint and has taken cognizance after recording the statement of the complainant. Therefore, it is directed that the Magistrate will adopt the procedure laid d9wn under section 244 Cr. P. C. for cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. ( 11 ) THE application under section 482 Cr. P. C. is partly allowed. The stay order dated 3. 6. 1993 is vacated. Petition dismissed. .