Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The petitioners in this case are accused in C/7 Case No. 17/95 under Section 3(a) of the R. P. U. P. Act pending in the court of Railway Magistrate, Chakradharpur. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings, but main stress has been given on the order of issuance of warrant of arrest including the processes under Section 82/83 of the Cr. P. C. at the initiation of the R. P. F. personnel. 3. A report was submitted by Shri S. N. Das, Inspector of the Railway Protection Force to the effect that these petitioners were found carrying stolen railway coal and on being intercepted by the R.P.F. Personnel, they fled away. Seizure was made of the coal including the truck but the accused persons could not be apprehended. On receipt of the report and the seizure list the Railway Magistrate accepted the same and passed the order awaiting formal complaint from the side of the R.P.F. personnel but before the formal complaint could be filed as contemplated under Section 190(1) of the Cr.P.C. a petition was filed from the side of the R.P F. personnel for issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused petition and also for processes under Section 82/ 83, Cr.P.C. 4. It appears from para 8 of the petition that the petitioners filed a petition before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1681 of 1995(R) for pre-arrest bail as contemplated under Section 438, Cr.P.C. But the said petition was rejected and the petitioners were ordered to surrender before the court below and file bail petition but without complying with the orders passed by this Court, the petitioners have now come up with this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. tor quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioners. 5. The grounds sought for are that the seizure list and the contents of the report of the R.P.F. personnel on the basis of which the learned Magistrate took steps in the case do not attract penal provision of Section 3(a) of the R. P, U. P. Act, inasmuch as the coal had no markings at the time of seizure showing the same to be railway property. Further contention is that the criminal proceeding was proceeded in wrong notion even before taking cognizance in the case and issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused parsons is unwarranted and illegal. 6. On the first contention, I do not find any force as the same to bo adjudicated during the course of trial. From the counter-affidavit filed by the Reporting Officer, Mr. S. N. Das, it appears that during course of enquiry, it could be found that the seized coal were detected to be railway properties being taken away by the accused persons. It has further been admitted by Mr. S. N. Das in the counter-affidavit that the enquiry in the case is still going on and awaiting for filing formal complaint. 7. R. P. F. personnel are not the police officers and it has been decided by the Apex Court in very many judgments and it has become a settled principle of law that R.P.F. personnel besides having some powers of police officers during the course of enquiry cannot be considered as police personnel as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. So, the cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate oa the basis of a complaint to be filed by the R.P.F. personnel for the offence under the Act under Section 190, Cr.P.C. because the offence under the Act are not cognizable offence. In that circumstances, it has rightly been pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the issuance of warrant of arrest and the processes under Section 82/83, Cr.P.C. at the initiation of the R. P. F, personnel during the course of enquiry of the offence is illegal and unwarranted. Ths Magistrate cannot act on such request being made from the side of the R.P.F. personnel as they are not the Police Officer investigating a cognizable offence, but the R.P.F. personnel have got right of arrest under Section 6 of the Act during the course of enquiry. Therefore, the second grievance of the petitioners have got much force in the case. 8. Issuance of warrant of arrest and process under Section 82/83, Cr.P.C. against the petitioners is bad and as such that order in the proceeding mentioned above is quashed. Therefore, the second grievance of the petitioners have got much force in the case. 8. Issuance of warrant of arrest and process under Section 82/83, Cr.P.C. against the petitioners is bad and as such that order in the proceeding mentioned above is quashed. But, the report submitted by the R.P.F, personnel may be considered if found fit by the learned Magistrate a complaint under Section 190(1), Cr.P.C. But, it appears from the initial order that the learned Magistrate did not consider it fit to construe the report of the R.P.F. Officer including the seizure list as a formal complaint as contemplated under Section 190 of the Cr P. C. It is also found from the counter-affidavit of the Inspector of R.P.F. that the enquiry of the case is still under process which go to show that the learned Magistrate was right in awaiting formal complaint from the side of R.P.F. personnel. 9. In that view of the matter, during the course of enquiry the R.P.F. personnels are at liberty to act under Section 6 of the Act. There is no scope for quashing the entire proceedings in the case as the materials available on record are sufficient to be enquired into from the side of the R.P.F. personnel for the alleged offence. 10. In the result, this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is partly allowed to the extent of quashing the order of warrant of arrest and the process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. against the petitioners but holding that the R.P.F. personnel shall be at liberty to file formal complaint after the enquiry is completed on which the Railway Magistrate can take cognizance as contemplated under Section 190, Cr.P.C. If the petitioners do not prefer to surrender before the Railway Magistrate as per order of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 1681/95 (R) the R.P.F. are at liberty to act under Section 6 of the Act.