JUDGMENT 1. - Further arguments were heard today and were completed. 2. On 20.5.1995 Amritlal lodged FIR at police station kotwali, Jalore alleging that Bishangarh Petrol Pump belonged to him. He was residing there. This petrol pump is in partnership with Babulal. It may be stated that both petitioner and Amritlal are brothers. It is alleged that on 20.5.1995 at about 5.00 P.M. Babulal along with certain other persons came in a car. Babulal petitioner threatened the complainant. Complainant Amritlal asked him as to what did he want. Babulal lost his temper and Babulal along with other persons started giving him beatings. It was further alleged that Babulal snatched a golden chain from the neck of Amritlal. Police registered a case under Sections 452 and 392 IPC. After investigation that report was submitted because the complainant himself had given in writing that his chain was found in his clothes. When file (sic) was submitted to the Magistrate having jurisdiction he took cognisance for offences under Sections 451 and 394 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when complainant had himself given in writing that when he took of his clothes in order to take bath he found his chain in his clothes, no offence was made out and that when the petrol pump belongs to both the brothers and the petitioner had entered into petrol pump where he had every right to go, offence under Section 451 IPC was also not made out. 4. Learned PP. submitted that order taking cognisance can be quashed in very exceptional circumstances and it is not such a case. 5. I find from the record that learned Magistrate rejected the document submitted by complainant in writing stating that the chain was available in his clothes because he was of the view that it was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. This view of learned Magistrate is not correct in view of the fact that very document submitted during investigation is not a statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. For example, if a theft is committed and report is lodged and thereafter a list of the property stolen is given to the Investigating Officer, it is not hit by Section 162 Cr.PC. For example, if a theft is committed and report is lodged and thereafter a list of the property stolen is given to the Investigating Officer, it is not hit by Section 162 Cr.PC. In Bhondu v. Rex, AIR 1949 Allahabad page 364, such a question arose and it was decided that after the FIR is registered and the complainant hands over a 1st of the stolen property to the Sub-inspector, such a list is not covered by Section 162 Cr.PC. and the list will be admissible in evidence. The document is of course not a list of articles but a document written by complainant during the course of investigation on the same corollary cannot be held to be a statement. In 1963(2) Cr.L.J. page 546, Gutta Sriramulu Naidu and another v. The State , certain documents written by accused and others in course of investigation were seized by the police. It was held that they were not statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and are not Subject to any disability in the matter of admissibility in evidence. After seeing the document submitted by complainant during investigation it can very well be said that it is not a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is simply a document and would not be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, admissible in evidence. When it is held that the document is admissible, I find that no case is me out against the accused petitioner. He has every right to go in the premises which is in his partnership. No offence of snatching of chain is made out. The statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation and they did not support the theory of snatching away of chain (see statements of Shrawan Singh, Ishwar Singh, Devi Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Sumer Singh). Learned Magistrate should have accepted the final report. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order taking cognisance dated 26.4.1996 is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******