Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 28.8.95 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in G.R. Case No. 2882/94 arising out of Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 310/94 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate committed the case of the petitioners to the court of Sessions. Short facts giving rise to this application are as follows : upon an F.R. lodged by one Baijnath Jha a case inder section 498A, 307 and 304B of th I.P.C. read with sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibitions Act was instituted agali st Sunil Kumar Pathak, Tarakant Pathak, Debar of Sarita and mother-in-law of Sarita. Police after investigation sub-mitted charge sheet against the accused Sunil Kumar Pathak and names of Tarakant Pathak, his wife and son were shown in red ink in the column-2 of charge sheet as absconders. It was mentioned in the charge sheet and also in the case diary that investigation as against abeconders is pending and supplementary charge sheet will be submitted later on. On the basis of the charge sheet sub-mitred against Sunil Kumar Pathak, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for disposal and supplementary record was opened so far the other accused persons are concerned as investigation against them was pending. Investigation, so far the absconding accused persons are concerned, proceeded and the statement of the witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded and after a considerable lapse of time investigating officer failed to file char-gesheet against rest of the accused persons even after their appearance in the court. A petition therefore was filed by the informant on 20.7.95 for proceeding in the matter upon the protest petition in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of the petition aforesaid, heard counsel for the parties and passed order dated 8.8.95 holding that there are sufficient materials in the case diary for proceeding against the petitioners in exercise of its power under section 190(1-b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and transferred the case for commitment to the court of Sri R.P.D. Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai. The transferee Magistrate after supplying the police papers to the petitioners, committed the case to the court of Sessions by the impugned order. 3. The transferee Magistrate after supplying the police papers to the petitioners, committed the case to the court of Sessions by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the investigation as against the petitioners was still pending and a supplementary record was opened, it was not incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioners on the basis of the materials in the police papers and thus the orders passed by the learned Magistrate is vitiated and the same would be wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Magistrate should have waited till the submission of the final form and only thereafter he could have proceeded in the matter in accordance with law. 4. I have perused the order passed by the learned Chief Justical Magistrate dated 8.8.95 and also the impunged order. It appears to me that after taking cognizance of the offence against Sunil Kumar Pathak who was sent up for trial by the police, the police delayed the further investigation so far the petitioners are concerned though the petitioners had appeared in the court and had taken bail. It further appears that the learned Magistrate, upon the petition filed by the informant, examined the police papers and having been satisfied that prima facie materials are there to proceed against the petitioners, directed for commitment of the case to the court of Sessions and accordingly the same was committed to the court of Sessions by the impugned order. The orders as referred to above sufficiently indicate that the learned Magistrate after taking due precaution and considering the fact that the police is unnecessarily delaying the investigation of the case, proceeded in the matter in exercise of its power under section 190(1-b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is settled that the learned Magistrate is empowered to proceed in the matter even on police papers in exercise of its power under section 190(1-b) of the Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, I will have no hesitation to hold that the learned Magistrate has proceeded in the matter in accordance with law and he was not bound to wait for the final form to be submitted in the further investigation of the case as the police was delaying the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners alternatively submitted that the Magistrate was required to follow the procedures laid down under section 210 of the Cr.P.C. and since it has not been done, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. This submission of learned counsel, in my opinion, is wholly misconceived inasmuch as that the further investigation so far petitioners are concerned, was pending with regard to the substantive offence for which the F.I.R. initially was lodged and it is not a case that for the same offence two cases were instituted by the informant attracting the provision of section 210 of the Cr.P.C. The action of the learned Magistrate is well within jurisdiction as required under section 190(1-b) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the provision of section 210 Cr.P.C. was not at all applicable in the case at hand. The action of the learned Magistrate in passing the orders as referred to above are fully in consonance with law and it must be held to have been done to secure the ends of justice as the petitioners even after taking bail from the court, were taking undue advantage of the lapse on the part of the investigating agency. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. It is therefore, dismissed.