Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the Cr. Original Case No. 53 of 1992 pending in the court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Devgarh. (2). This petition is directed against the order dated 2.5.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, whereby he took cognizances of the offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 342, 323, 327, 447 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against Madan Lal and others, including the three petitioners namely Chandan Lal Jain, Ashok Kumar and Prakash Chan dra. (3). The only question to be decided in this petition is whether the impugned order by which the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences u/s. 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of a complaint filed by the non- petitioner No. 2, is without jurisdiction because on the same facts, a first information report No. 28/1988 was lodged by the non-petitioner No. 2 at the Police Station, Devgarh and after conducting investigation, the police had submitted a final report u/s. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the final report was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate on 17.3.1989. (4). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the Magistrate accepts the final report submitted by the Police Officer after conducting an investigation, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offences on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant. The question of law arising for decision in this case is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Gopal Vijay Verma vs. Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sinha (1). In that case, the Honble Supreme Court observed :– ``The High Court was clearly in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of a case upon complaint because he had earlier refused to take cognizance of the case on a police report. The order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for disposal according to law. If the accused have any further objections to raise, they may do so before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (5). The order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for disposal according to law. If the accused have any further objections to raise, they may do so before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (5). In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Gopal Vijay Verma vs. Bhuwneshwar Prasad (supra), it is not necessary to refer to the rulings of the High Court. The law declared by the Honble Supreme Court is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution. (6). For reasons mentioned above, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after accepting the final report submitted by the police, the Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance on the basis of complaint filed before him, is without any merit. It must be said that the learned Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences on the basis of complaint filed by the non- petitioner No. 2, notwithstanding the acceptance of the final report submitted by the police by an earlier order. (7). So far as facts of the case are concerned, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this court under Sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (8). For reasons mentioned above, the petition has no force. It deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.