JUDGMENT 1. - Heard 2. In this case Satish, informant had lodged a report with Police Station Chirawa alleging therein that on 21.1.95 at 9 A.M. the present petitioner alongwith three others namely Veer Bahadur, Smt. Man Kumari and Smt. Sudhira assaulted his old father Prahlad Singh and caused him fatal injuries which led to his death in the hospital on the same day. After having registered Crime No. 17/95 Under section 302/34, 323, 448 IPC against the petitioner and three others the police investigated the case but submitted Final Report No. 2/95 against all the accused persons. On having been given a notice by the learned Magistrate before accepting the F.R., as submitted by the police before him, Satish, the informant, filed a protest petition but after bearing him on such petition the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 31.8.96 accepted the FIR submitted by the police and rejected the protest petition filed by Satish. informant. However, the order of the learned Magistrate having been challenged before him by Satish informant, the learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu vide his impugned order dated 22.2.97 dismissed the petition as against Veer Bahadur, Smt. Man Kumari and Smt. Sudhira but accepted the same as against the present petitioner and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed further in the case against him. 3. The main contention of Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge has expressed his mind to the effect that prima facie the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder had been committed by the petitioner, which he should not have done, and, therefore, there was no sense in his direction to the Magistrate to take further proceedings in the matter. The learned Public Prosecutor has, however, supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 4. I have examined the order of the learned Magistrate is also of the learned Sessions Judge. 5. I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge would have done better if he would not have expressed his opinion regarding the commission of the offence in the case. In case he wanted that further inquiry be done in the matter he could have directed the learned Magistrate to do such inquiry under the provisions of the code. I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge would have done better if he would not have expressed his opinion regarding the commission of the offence in the case. In case he wanted that further inquiry be done in the matter he could have directed the learned Magistrate to do such inquiry under the provisions of the code. It was a case of a Negative Report submitted by the police and on such report the Magistrate, if he felt satisfied that there existed sufficient evidence in the police report and the document submitted therewith to disclose the commission of cognizable offence, he could have taken cognizance of such offence Under section 190(1)(b) Cr.PC. However, when the learned Magistrate had desired to hear the informant before accepting the F.R. then he would have done better to examine the informant Under section 200 and also to record the statements of his such witnesses as he desired to produce Under section 202 Cr.PC., as the Magistrate had not felt satisfied with the commission of such offence on the perusal of the Negative Report of the police and the document submitted therewith. After having done that exercise the learned Magistrate must have considered the evidence so coming before him alongwith the evidence obtaining in the Negative Report therewith and then should have passed the final orders. Anyway, the learned Sessions Judge, in exercise of his powers Under section 398 Cr.P.C. could have directed the learned Magistrate to take further proceedings in the matter. In that sense of the matter the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or invalidity. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed with the above observations. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case in the light of the above observations was also the relevant provisions of law.> Petition dismissed. *******