Judgment NARAYAN ROY, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 30th September, 1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd. Patna in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1993 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside order dated 13-11-1992 and earlier orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in complaint case No. 413(C) 92 taking cognizance of the offence against opposite parties under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The short facts giving rise to this application are as follows : The petitioner filed a petition of complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur stating therein, inter alia, that on 7-8-1992 the petitioner has gone to his village and when he returned back, he found his Baba missing. Thereafter the petitioner tried to search him out but all in vain. However, he came to know that his Baba has been removed on a Jeep at about 8 p.m. towards Patna. Thereafter the petitioner went to Patna to search out his Baba but he could not find any trace. 4. On the basis of the complaint petition, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur directed Rani Talab Police to institute a case and to investigate. 5. It appears that Rani Talab Police filed a petition stating therein that the place of occurrence falls within Bikram Police Station so the case should be referred to the Bikram Police Station for instituting the case. Accordingly, the Court referred the matter to the Bikram Police Station for investigation and instituting a case. 6. It appears that after few days the complainant filed a petition before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate making a prayer to proceed with the complaint case as the police has failed to institute a case. The learned Court below thereafter proceed with the complaint case and took cognizance of the offence against the opposite parties. Opposite parties challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had no inherent power to recall his previous order by which he had referred the matter to the local police for investigation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the Cr. Opposite parties challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had no inherent power to recall his previous order by which he had referred the matter to the local police for investigation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the Cr. Revision No. 35 of 1993 after hearing the parties and set aside order dated 13-11-1992 and also the previous order passed by the Court below giving rise to this application. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and also the orders by which the matter was sent to the local police for investigation. He further submitted that since the local police had failed to institute a case, the Court proceeded with the complaint case and as such it cannot be said that he had recalled the previous orders. 8. The learned counsel appearing on hehalf of the opposite parties, however, contended that once the matter was sent to the local police by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for investigation, he could have waited till a report was received from the police or he could have called for a report from the police about its inaction and thereafter he could have proceeded with the complaint petition. Therefore, it has been submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the, procedure adopted by the Additional Chich Judicial Magistrate in proceeding with the complaint case without waiting for the police report is not permissible. 9. The facts that the complaint was filed and the same was referred to the local police for investigation is almost admitted. 10. Now the question is as to whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to proceed with the case which was sent to the local police for instituting a case to investigate. 11. The course is open to the learned Magistrate, when he had referred the complaint to the local palice to institute a case and to investigate and was to wait till the report was received from the local police. 11. The course is open to the learned Magistrate, when he had referred the complaint to the local palice to institute a case and to investigate and was to wait till the report was received from the local police. In case there was abnornal delay in sending the report, the learned Court should have called for a report from the local police and then, should have proceeded either with the police report or with the complaint petition. 12. Since the procedure available under law has not been adopted by the Court below, he had committed jurisdictional error in taking cognizance. of the offence upon the complaint petition which was sent to the local police for investigation. 13. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in setting aside the orders by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 14. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. 15. However, the learned Court below shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter afresh in accordance with law.