J. C. GUPTA, J. Heard the applicants counsel and the learned A. G. A. 2. By means of this application the applicants have prayed for the quashing of the order of the Magistrate dated 28-1-1992 by which he has rejected the Final Report submitted by the Police and has issued process against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants firstly argued before me that the impugned order of summoning the applicants as ac cused is bad in law inasmuch as it cannot be inferred from the said order whether the Magistrate has taken cognizance under the provisions of Section 190 (1) (a) or Section 190 (l) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, after the filing of Final Report by the police, if the com plainant moves a protest petition and also files some affidavits or other material, the only course open for the Magistrate is to take cognizance under the provisions of Section 190 (l) (b) after following the proce dure provided in respect of complainant cases and since such a procedure has not been followed in the present case, the im pugned order is liable to be quashed. He placed reliance upon the decision in Bhagwan Das v. State, 1993 ACr R1. 4. In the aforesaid decision Honble Palok Basu, J. went into the question, "will it be legal, and if yes, then what will be the procedure to be followed in cases where after investigating the First Information Report, Investigating Officer filed a Final Report and the informant challenges the said Final Report by filing protest Petition and affidavits before the Magistrate, who then takes the cognizance and summons the accused ?" It has been held in the said decision that after the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. State, 1986 A. W. C. 26, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to issue notice to the informant before accepting the Final Report forwarded by the Investigating of ficer. The learned Single Judge in the case of Bhagwan Das (supra) has further held that in pursuance of the notice issued to the complainant, the Magistrate is not to hear the informant orally only and if the Magistrate permits the informant to produce application, affidavit and other material, he is not bound to follow the pro cedure provided for the complainant case. The learned Judge observed: "the Honble Supreme Court never ap pears to have desired that in such a case an inform ant should be asked to shoulder the burden of the complainant even though the Final Report deser ves rejection. " 5. It has also been held in the aforesaid decision of Bhagwan Das (supra) that when the Magistrate takes cognizance on a com plaint and he wishes to proceed with it he has to record statement of the complainant on oath and so long as this is not done, the Magistrate will be deemed to be considering only the police report. 6. In the case in hand, the complainant of course presented a protest petition and filed some affidavits before the Magistrate but is further appears that the Magistrate did not think it necessary to record the state ment of the first informant u/s 200 Cr. P. C. By filing protest petition the complainant simply invited the attention of the Magis trate that he was not agreeing with the Final Report submitted by the police and he was submitting his objections in the form of the protest petition. Undisputedly the Magis trate has not recorded the statement of the complainant u/s 200 Cr. P. C. and has not followed the procedure provided for com plaint cases, it would thus be deemed that the Magistrate was considering only the police report while taking cognizance of the case in exercise of powers u/s 190 (1) (b) of the Code. It is now well-settled law that when a Final Report is submitted by the police after investigation, three courses are open to the Magistrate: (1) He may accept the Final Report and drop the proceedings, after hearing the complainant/first informant. (2) He may disagree with the con clusion arrived at by the police officer and straightaway take cognizance in exercise of powers under Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr. P. C. (3) He may order further investigation. 7. In the present case the Magistrate appears to have acted under Clause (2) aforesaid and therefore the impugned order would not be bad in law on the ground that the Magistrate has not followed the proce dure provided for complainant cases. 8. Relying upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Agrawal v. State of UP. 8. Relying upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Agrawal v. State of UP. 1994 (31) ACC 341, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is invalid as before issuing process against the applicants, no opportunity of hearing was given to them. The facts of the said case were entirely different from the facts of the present case : In the case of Rajendra Kumar Agrawal (supra) no order of summoning was passed but the Magistrate had ordered re-investigation. On the other hand in the present case processes have been issued against the applicants and they have sail with them a remedy to have their say before the Magistrate by putting their appearance in pursuance of the impugned order. They can plead and p)ace facts before the Magistrate that there is no sufficient ground against them to proceed further. In the decision in Pratap v. State of U. P. 1991 Cr. L. J. 1669, the same question arose for consideration and Honble G. P. Mathur, J. gave a detailed judgment and held that the accused has got no right to be heard at a stage prior to issue process against him. It was observed: "neither under the Cr PC nor under any principle of natural justice the Magistrate is re quired to issue notice or afford an opportunity of hearing to an accused in a case where the police has submitted Final Report but on consideration of the material on record the Magistrate take cognizance of the offence in exercise of his powers u/s. 190 (1) (b) and directs issue of process to the accused. The Code does not contemplate holding of two trials one before the issue of process and the other after the process is issued. " In paragraph-8 the learned Judge fur ther observed: "therefore, before issuing summons or warrant against the accused, the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, has to form an opinion on the limited question as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. When process is issued of a Magistrate the person concerned is not being condemned in any manner. The order issu ing process does not adversely effect the accused. He is neither being convicted nor sentenced. He is merely being asked to face trial in a court of law. When process is issued of a Magistrate the person concerned is not being condemned in any manner. The order issu ing process does not adversely effect the accused. He is neither being convicted nor sentenced. He is merely being asked to face trial in a court of law. It cannot be said that merely because process has been issued against a person, a decision adversely affecting him has been taken. It cannot, therefore, be said that any principle of natural justice is infringed, if the Magistrate issues process against a person without first affording him an oppor tunity of hearing. " It is, further, observed: "the legislature has taken extreme care and has made elaborate procedure to give full oppor tunity to an accused once the trial being in the court of law. Article 21 of the Constitution lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. " 9. The Apex Court in the case of Chandra Deo v. Prukash Chandra, AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963)1 SCR 202 has also held that an accused has no locus standi till process is issued. 10. Where a Final Report is submitted by the police, the Magistrate can straightaway take cognizance disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer, even without issuing notice to the informant. The necessity of issuing notice arises only where the Magistrate does not take cognizance after the submission of Final Report. The rational behind this ap pears to be that where a Final Report is submitted, that is the end of the matter as far as the first informant is concerned and since he is the person who had set the law into motion, he is entitled to a hearing before the matter is finally closed. The same analogy cannot be applied to in respect of an accused for the reason that he gets an opportunity after the process is issued against him and it cannot be said that merely because a process has been issued againt him, a decision ad versely effecting him has been taken. Such an order does not adversely effect the rights of the accused, since he had got ample remedy with him to have his say before the Magistrate at appropriate stage. 11. In my opinion, the view taken by Honble GP. Such an order does not adversely effect the rights of the accused, since he had got ample remedy with him to have his say before the Magistrate at appropriate stage. 11. In my opinion, the view taken by Honble GP. Mathur, J. in the aforesaid case of Pratap in the correct view of law. Concur ring with that view it must be held that neither under the Code of Criminal Proce dure nor under any principle of natural jus tice the Magistrate is required to issue notice or afford an opportunity of hearing to an accused in a case where the police has submitted Final Report but on considera tion of the material on record the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence in exercise of his powers under S. 190 (l) (b) and directs issue of process to the accused. 12. For the above reasons, I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. 13. This application has no merits and is accordingly rejected. Application dismissed. .