Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non- petitioner No.2. (2). This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 8.7.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheenmal on final report No.72/95 of Police Station Bheenmal District Jalore. By the aforesaid order the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 458, 494, 498-A and 323 read with 109 I.P.C. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in this case after conducting an investigation the Police submitted a final report showing that the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. only had been committed and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without sufficient grounds took cognizance and proceeded against the petitioners in respect of the offences under Sections 458, 494, 498-A and 323 and with 109 I.P.C. He has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 8.7.1996 be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (4). The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and submitted that if the petitioners have any grievance they can raise the objections against the taking of cognizance before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate or make their submissions at the time of framing of the charge. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 that the offences of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate are prima facie made out by the first information report, final report and the evidence collected by the prosecution and the protest petition and, therefore, no illegality, irregularity or impropriety has been committed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor has also supported the order dated 8.7.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheenmal. (5). I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties, the reasons given by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence mentioned above and for proceeding against the petitioners and also perused the record of the case. The relevant facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below: (6). Santosh D/o Narsi Ram was married to Ram Lal alias Ramaram S/o Panna Ram, resident of Salawas. The relevant facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below: (6). Santosh D/o Narsi Ram was married to Ram Lal alias Ramaram S/o Panna Ram, resident of Salawas. After her marriage Smt. Santosh went to her husbands house, lived there for sometime and returned to her fathers house. It is alleged that Smt. Santosh was served with a notice by the first wife of Ram Lal alias Rama Ram and through that notice she came to know that her husband Ram Lal was already married before he celebrated the second marriage with her. It is alleged that Ram Lal accompanied by some persons of his family went to the house of Narsi Ram and requested him to send his daughter Smt. Santosh with him. Narsi Ram declined to send Smt. Santosh with him and asked him to get the matter settled in a Panchayat. The petitioner and his companions however wanted to take away Smt. Santosh with them. While they were inside the house of Narsi Ram struggle took place in which both the parties used force against each other. Prema Ram received injuries of grevious nature on his nose and several other injuries were received by him and the members of his party. A separate case was registered by the Police so far as the injuries of Prema Ram and his companions are concerned. In this petition the proceedings initiated by the Court relating to that report are not in question. (7). Narsi Ram, father of Smt. Santosh in whose house the quarrel took place lodged the first information report at Bheenmal on 7.10.95 at 2.15 A.M. In that report he alleged that Santosh was married to Ram Lal S/o Panna Ram about two years ago and that after her marriage relationship of Santosh with her in-laws became tense and she returned to his fathers house because she apprehended danger to herself. It was further alleged that on 3.10.1995 at about 10.00 A.M. Chatra Ram and Ram Lal went to the house of Narsi Ram and asked him to send his daughter Santosh with them. They further asserted that in the event Santosh was not sent with them they would use force and give a beating. It was further alleged that on 3.10.1995 at about 10.00 A.M. Chatra Ram and Ram Lal went to the house of Narsi Ram and asked him to send his daughter Santosh with them. They further asserted that in the event Santosh was not sent with them they would use force and give a beating. When Narsi Ram did not agree to send his daughter with them, the above named two persons went away from the house of Narsi Ram at the persuation of Shri Ram and son of Narsi Ram. (8). On 6.10.1995 at about 7 P.M. Prema Ram and Ram Lal S/o Panna Ram again went to the house of Narsi Ram and asked him to send Smt. Santosh with them. Narsi Ram at that time told them that Ram Lal had solemnised marriage with some other girl and since proceedings had been instituted by that girl, the matter should be settled before Santosh was sent with them. (9). In the first information report it was also alleged that Prema Ram and Ram Lal both after hearing above mentioned reply of Narsi Ram became annoyed and they attempted to forcibly take away Santosh as well as Reshmi and started outraging the modesty of Reshmi who was the daughter-in-law of Narsi Ram. Reshmi was on that day bearing a child in her womb. According to the first information report she was caught by neck, her clothes were torned and when Kamla tried to protect her she was also caught by her hair and felled her on ground. It was also alleged that Narsi Ram was given a beating by boots and kicks and he received injuries on his head and Narsi Rams wife was also beaten. (10). On the basis of the report submitted by Narsi Ram the Police registered a case under Section 498-A, 447 and 323 I.P.C. During investigation the Police got examine the injuries of Narsi Ram and Smt. Reshmi Devi. Three simple injuries were caused by blunt weapon on Reshmi Devi and four injuries were caused by blunt weapon on Narsi Ram. The statement of the witnesses were also recorded in which substantially the contracts of the first information report was affirmed. After investigation the Police submitted a final report stating therein that only offence under Section 323 I.P.C. was made out. The statement of the witnesses were also recorded in which substantially the contracts of the first information report was affirmed. After investigation the Police submitted a final report stating therein that only offence under Section 323 I.P.C. was made out. It was also mentioned by the Police in the final report that the allegations contained in the first information report were exaggerated and were prompted by motive to cause harassment by Ram Lal and Prema Ram. (11). After the final Report was produced in the Court, Narsi Ram submitted the protest petition challenging the final report. An affidavit was also filed by Narsi Ram and Smt. Santosh before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. After hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the papers available to him the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order. (12). The first criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not empowered to look into the affidavit which was filed before him by Narsi Ram and Santosh because in case he wanted to examine any witness he had to examine the witness himself in the Court whether under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. or otherwise and he had no legal right to direct the production of affidavit and to take them into consideration. (13). The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to carry some weight. When a final report is submitted before a Magistrate by the Police after conducting an investigation, one of the following three courses are open to him. These are (a) he may accept the final report by declining to take cognizance of the offence and if any person is already in custody to discharge him (b) to direct further investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and (c) to take cognizance under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 Cr.P.C. In case the Magistrate adopts the third course and take cognizance of an offence under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 Cr.P.C. he has to find out who the offenders are (vide law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Raghuvansh Dubey vs. State of Bihar (1)). At the time of finding out who the offenders are he has to judicially consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against one or more accused person under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It is well established that when cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate a criminal case is instituted in his Court. Therefore, the proceedings conducted by the Magistrate after the taking of the cognizance and before the issue of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. are in the nature of judicial proceedings amounting to inquiry prior to the issue of process against any accused. To such an inquiry the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 165 of the Evidence Act are applicable and, therefore, after taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. on the basis of the final report, if a Magistrate deems fit he may examine any witness on oath in order to find out whether there is or is not sufficient ground to proceed against any accused. (14). The later part of Section 311 Cr.P.C. as well as provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act permit the Court to examine or re-examine any person. None of these provisions appear to empower the Court to demand an affidavit from any party or witness or to act upon such affidavit for the purpose mentioned in Section 311 Cr.P.C. or Section 165 of the Evidence Act. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was, therefore, not justified in taking into consideration the affidavits of Smt. Santosh and Shri Narsi Ram which were filed before him. If he wanted to put question to them for the purpose of ascertaining truth he could have recorded their statements himself on oath which he has not done in this case. (15). The second submision of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is not made out and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence, particularly when there was no complaint as contemplated by Section 198 Cr.P.C. by the aggrieved party. (15). The second submision of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is not made out and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence, particularly when there was no complaint as contemplated by Section 198 Cr.P.C. by the aggrieved party. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has tried to controvert the submission by submitting that if any cognizable offence is made out by the allegations made in the first information report then the Police Officer has a right under Section 156 Cr.P.C. to investigate the cognizable offence as well as one or more non-cognizable offences which appear to have been committed and, therefore, the report which is to be submitted by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. would be entitled to be treated as a police report not only for the purpose of cognizable offences investigated by the police but also for the non-cognizable offences which might have been investigated. On the basis of the aforesaid submission the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has submitted that the final report was sufficient for the purpose of enabling the `learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of cognizable offences as well as of non-cognizable offences under Sections 323 and 494 I.P.C. (16). It is true that under sub-section (4) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. the Police Officer who is empowered to conduct investigation of cognizable offence may exercise the same powers in respect of non-cognizable offence which appears to be made out and if he submits a police report in respect of both the offences, the Court would be competent to take cognizance of those offences. It is, however, necessary that the Police Officer should have exercised its power under sub-section (4) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. in respect of non-cognizable offences, while conducting the investigation in respect of cognizable offences. If the Police Officer has not exercised the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 155 Cr.P.C., and collected no evidence worth the name regarding non- cognizable offence, it cannot be said that the Police Officer has submitted a report in respect of the non-cognizable offence also. If the Police Officer has not exercised the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 155 Cr.P.C., and collected no evidence worth the name regarding non- cognizable offence, it cannot be said that the Police Officer has submitted a report in respect of the non-cognizable offence also. In the instant case the Police has not investigated the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. nor the Police has submitted any report in respect of Section 494 I.P.C. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the final report submitted by the Police cannot be treated as the Police report for the purpose of Section 494 I.P.C. and, therefore, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not legally empowered to take cognizance of the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. In the absence of a complaint contemplated by Section 198 Cr.P.C. In any case neither the final report nor the documents attached to it contain any facts which may justify proceeding against any person in respect of offence under Section 494 I.P.C. (17). The third submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is not made out. I have perused the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. He has opined that if a person enters into a second marriage with a lady while his first marriage with another lady is subsisting, his act would attract Section 498-A I.P.C. I am afraid, the proposition of law assumed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is not supported by any statute. Section 498 I.P.C. reads as below : ``Section 498-Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman : – Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (18). A bare perusal of this Section shows that in order any person may be guilty of cruelty under this Section he must be either husband or a relative of the husband. (18). A bare perusal of this Section shows that in order any person may be guilty of cruelty under this Section he must be either husband or a relative of the husband. It means that the marriage must have taken place before the commission of cruelty under Section 498-A I.P.C. The view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was, therefore, erroneous. (19). The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case as stated by the Investigating Officer in the Police report only non- cognizable offence under Section 323 I.P.C. was made out and no offence of criminal trespass in a house can be said to have been made out by the facts revealed by record. The argument advanced by him is to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 was the husband of Smt. Santosh. He had gone to the house of Narsi Ram with a view to bring his wife Smt. Santosh with him and being the son-in-law of Narsi Ram he should be deemed to be possessing the permission to enter into the house of Narsi Ram and, therefore, it cannot be said that an offence of committing criminal trespass in the house of Narsi Ram was committed. The aforesaid argument is only partly true. Every permission that the person in possession of the house may grant to another person is obviously limited and it is conditional. This permission can be validly availed of for the purpose of doing lawful acts but it cannot be used for the purpose of doing unlawful acts. Unless, of course, it is proved by evidence that permission to do unlawful acts was given. Relatives may be presumed to have the permission, if the circumstances of case do justify the inference, to enter into the premises of their close relatives, but such permissions are subject to the condition that after entry into the premises the person entering will not cause harm to any person or commit any offence. Since this aspect is to be considered afresh by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom I intend to remand the case. I prefer not to express any further opinion. (20). Since this aspect is to be considered afresh by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom I intend to remand the case. I prefer not to express any further opinion. (20). In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the impugned order dated 8.7.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheenmal deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. The case is remanded with a direction that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall dispose of the final report after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 in accordance with law. (21). This petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of the order be sent to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheenmal for information and necessary action. He is directed to dispose of the final report within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.