JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner Jangir Singh has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint petition filed by the respondent No. 2 alleging commission of theft by the applicant Jangir Singh. 2. It has alleged that the order taking cognizance of an offence Under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is without jurisdiction and unsustainable on law and is, therefore, liable to be struckout. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that a first information report regarding this theft was lodged before the police and the Police have, after investigation, filed final report saying that the dispute appears to be of civil nature and no crime is made out. When this report was filed, a complaint petition was also filed saying that cognizance is liable to be taken and evidence was recorded before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has after taking into consideration a FR and the evidence, came to a prima facie conclusion that cognizance is liable to be taken in this case and hence, proceeded to take cognizance, it is this order which is impugned before me in this petition on the grounds mentioned above. 3. During the course of arguments, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court reported in 1989 RCC page 272, wherein, it has been held by this Court that non-consideration of the FR by a Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint after the final report is filed is incorrect that may be the position in law. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the Magistrate has not taken into consideration the FR filed by the Police. The order dated 21.8.95 discloses that it has been passed only on the FR No. 46/93. It has been recorded by the learned Magistrate that he has perused the papers and the statements of the witnesses and prima facie case under section 379 Indian Penal Code appears to exist. In my opinion, this is sufficient application of mind by the learned Magistrate, the only thing required to be done is to find as a fact existence of a prima facie case and then the Magistrate does have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint. 4. In my opinion, this is sufficient application of mind by the learned Magistrate, the only thing required to be done is to find as a fact existence of a prima facie case and then the Magistrate does have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint. 4. The learned counsel then relied on another decision of this Court reported in 1996 Cr.L.J. page 190, it also lays down that non-consideration of the report of Police Officer amounts to abuse of the process of law. I have found that there is no elaborate discussion of the report such is not the requirement of the law. 5. I see, therefore, no substance in this application the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******