Judgment P.K.Sarkar, J. 1. This criminal application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings along with the order passed on 5.1.1993 onwards including the order to taking cognizance dated 15.2.1993 and also 2.3.1993. 2. The facts leading to this application, in brief, are as follows : 3. The fardbeyan of the informant Narbdeshwar Choubey was recorded on 3.9.1988 in between 11/12 in the night in the village hospital, where the dead body of his brother Dineshwar Choubey was also lying, wherein he stated, inter alia, that in the said night around 7.30 p.m. he was sitting at the roof of his house having torch in his hand. At that time his deceased brother Dineshwar Choubey was hearing radio in the court yard where a lantern was also burning. The family members of the house had gone for easing out and father and uncle of the informant were at the dalan. At that time Sri Kant Choubey. Tej Narain Choubey, Mahendra Choubey and Subhash Choubey each armed with a double barrel gun and Rama Shankar Choubey armed with a rifle came there and took out the wrist watch from the hand of the deceased. The accused Rama Shankar Choubey took his radio and asked whereabout of his brother (informant), at which his deceased brother replied, that Narbdeshwar Choubey is in the village. It is also alleged that apart from the aforesaid persons 6 to 8 other persons were also there. They forcibly broke open lock of the boxes kept in side the house and also took out the articles. All the five accused persons caught hold of Dineshwar Choubey and took him in the gali, vvhere on the instigation of Subhash Choubey and Tej Narain Choubey, Mahendra Choubey fired at him as a result of which, he died. The informant further contended that he saw all the things from the roof of the house in the torch light. It is further stated that on hearing the sound of firing the villagers assembled who identified the accused persons. The informant further claimed that the dacoits took away with them 30 sarees, 20 sayas, 2 golden chains of 2 bharis, ear-top 8 annas bhar, silver payal of 5 bharis, 2 golden nathuni of 4 annas bharis, 300 rupees cash, in all looted away properties worth Rs.19,650/-. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan Bikramganj P.S. Case. The informant further claimed that the dacoits took away with them 30 sarees, 20 sayas, 2 golden chains of 2 bharis, ear-top 8 annas bhar, silver payal of 5 bharis, 2 golden nathuni of 4 annas bharis, 300 rupees cash, in all looted away properties worth Rs.19,650/-. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan Bikramganj P.S. Case. No. 77/88 had been registered under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, thereafter, took up the investigation of the case. In course of investigation police came to know that the Brahmin community is divided into two groups. One group is supported by the Yadav. It also came to light that in the year 87 Dinara P.S. Case. No. 62/87 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act was instituted in which only son of the accused named in Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 77/88, i.e. Subhash Choubey, was killed. In this case Bhukhi Singh, Rameshar Singh, Ram Ekbal Singh and Hira are the named accused and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against them and the persons who have been named in the Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 77/88 are witnesses in Dinara P.S. Case No. 62/87. The informant Narbdeshwar Choubey had made statement in Dinara P.S. Case No. 62/87 before the officials of the crime investigation department in favour of accused Bhukhi Singh and when the trial of Dinara P.S. Case No.62/87 was about to start then the present case was instituted and witnesses of that case have been made accused in the present case and the police also found that the accused Subhash Choubey was in his house on the date of occurrence in the night as well and he was arrested from his house. 5. On further investigation the police came to the conclusion that in the FIR named accused persons have not committed this offence and they have been deliberately made accused in this case by the informant in order to support the accused persons of Dinara P.S. Case No. 62/87. The accused persons named in that case all belong to the group of the informant of the present case. 6. In course of investigation the police apprehended one Janardan Yadav in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No. 114/88 under Sections 452, 302/34 and 27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons named in that case all belong to the group of the informant of the present case. 6. In course of investigation the police apprehended one Janardan Yadav in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No. 114/88 under Sections 452, 302/34 and 27 of the Arms Act. The said Janardan Yadav had made a confessional statement on 30-12-1989 wherein he had confessed about commission of a number of crimes including this present dacoity and murder. In course of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against Janardan Yadav while the investigation was still in progress. 7. During the pendency of the investigation the informant had killed a protes petition of 21.11.1988 alleging that the police is trying to spoil the case. Subsequently, the police on completion of investigation submitted chagre-sheet but did not charge-sheet the named accused persons. 8. The Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj at Sasaram, accordingly, took cognizance of the case on 28.3.1990 under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused persons in the charge-sheet and fixed the case for commitment. The matter remained pending and finally the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate by order dated 19.9.1992 issues notice to the informat stating that the named accused persons in the first information report have not been charge-sheeted and, therefore, he can appear before the court, if he has to make any submission. On appearance of the informant before the court he was examined on 5-1-1993 under Section 200 Cr PC and the court fixed 7-1-1993 for enquiry under Section 202 Cr PC and, thereafter, examined further witnesses on 8-1-1993 and finally by order dated 15-2-1993 again took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 396 of the Penal Code on the basis of the protest petition. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisted with the aforsaid order this present application has been filed. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the police did not submit any charge sheet against the named accused persons in the first information report. Charge-sheet was submitted only against Janardan Yadav who was, subsequently, arrested during the investigation and the cognizance was also taken against the said Janardan Yadav on 28-3-1990. Thus, The subsequent order of cognizance dated 15-2-1993 after examining the informant of S.A. under Section 200 Cr PC examining certain witnesses under Setion 202 Cr PC is not legal. Charge-sheet was submitted only against Janardan Yadav who was, subsequently, arrested during the investigation and the cognizance was also taken against the said Janardan Yadav on 28-3-1990. Thus, The subsequent order of cognizance dated 15-2-1993 after examining the informant of S.A. under Section 200 Cr PC examining certain witnesses under Setion 202 Cr PC is not legal. The main contention of the learned counsel is that in case the informant was aggrieved his only option opened was that he could have filed a petition before the trial court only after evidence against the named FIR accused persons would have come on examining the witnesses in the sessions trial under Section 319 Cr PC. Since Section 319 Cr PC is very specific on the point that where in course of any enquiry into, or trial of an offecne appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. The main point for consideration, as per the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in this case is whether in a case where charge-sheet has been submitted against any person and final report has been submitted against others and the court has already taken cognizance in the case will it be proper for the court to examine the complainant under Section 200 Cr PC and also to examine certain witnesses under Section 202 Cr PC and to take cognizance on some other persons and therby instituting a case to be tried by the complaint procedure. It is stated that since cognizance has already been taken was open for the court to frame charge after commitment against the accused charge-sheeted and if in course of evidence it comes to light that the other accused persons who were earlier named in the first information report also appears to be involved in the crime can very well be summoned under Section 319 Cr PC and cognizance was well automatically being supposed to have taken agianst those persons as well and the case can proceed. The learned counsel furhter argued that if this view is accepted then the subsequent cognizance dated 15-2-1993 is liable to be quashed and the entire proceedings of the said complaint case will also be quashed along with the order of cognizance. 11. Sri Narbdeshwar Choubey, O.P. No. 2 neither appeared personally nor represented by any counsel. Thus, no counter-affidavit has been filed on his behalf. However, the learned counsel for the State represents the opposite party No. 2. 12. Admittedly, police submitted charge-sheet only against Janardan Yadav who was initially not named in the first information report. In the charge-sheet police has, however, mentioned certain persons as witnesses including the informant and others. Cognizance has already been taken in the said G. R. Case, on 28-3-1990 and the case was fixed for hearing on the point of commitment. Thereafter, notices were issued against the informant and on his appearance he was examined under Section 202 Cr PC. Some of the witnesses have also been examined under Section 202 Cr PC and cognizance was taken on 15-2-1993 against the F.I.R. named accused persons as none of them were charge-sheeted in the charge-sheet. Thus, cognizace was taken on the basis of two procedures; one on the basis of a charge-sheet by the police and the other on the basis of a complaint for the same offence. A question therefore arises whether these two cases can conveniently be tried together. 13. Originally the case was filed by the informant complainant against the opposite parties but the police did not find on investigation evidence against these persons and sent up another persons for trial. Thus, the police did not submit final report in the earlier case but sent the case before the court for trial. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the said case has come up before the court for disposal. 14. Section 319 Cr PC empowers the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. It states where in the course of any enquiry into or trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. It states where in the course of any enquiry into or trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. "Sections 319 (3) of the Cr PC empowers any person attending the court, although not under arrest or upon a summon, may be detained by such court for the purpose of the enquiry or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed." 15. In that view of the matter the court has ample power to proceed even against these persons against whom the police did not find enough evidence and did not charge-sheet them, in case the informant and other witnesses make out a case against those persons. It is true that there may be some inconvenience on the part of the court in-as-much as these persons will agian have to given an opportunity to cross- examine those witnesses. Thus, the law provides enough scope for the court to hold up any person who according to the court is found to have committed the offence on the basis of evidence on record. 16. In this case, however, the informant had filed a protest petition and the court proceeed and examined certain witnesses under Section 202 Cr PC and took separate cognizace meaning thereby that practically two cases will have to run on the basis of same set of witnesses for the same occurrence. It is true that the accused persons are different and, thus, it can not be said that one person is being tried twice for one occurrence but, in my view, the trial in this case will create some complications. The matter would have been different if the police would have submitted final report in the entire case without fixing responsibility on any person. In that case the matter could have easily proceeded on the basis of a protest petition. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts, when opportunities and the scope have been provided by the law itself for fixing responsibilities and issuing summons probeeding against such persons against whom subsequent evidences come up it will not be appropriate to proceed against them on the basis of a protest petition in a separate trial. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts, when opportunities and the scope have been provided by the law itself for fixing responsibilities and issuing summons probeeding against such persons against whom subsequent evidences come up it will not be appropriate to proceed against them on the basis of a protest petition in a separate trial. Accordingly, I find there are enough substances in the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. This application is, thus, allowed and the order of cognizance passed in the complaint case bearing No. 8C/93 is quashed. However, I would like to observe clearly that in the Sessions case arising out of Dinara P. S. Case No.114/88 after examining the complainant and some witnesses if the court finds that the evidence of the informant and others are sufficient in making out a case against the petitioners, the court will be at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 319 Cr PC and can proceed against the petitioners and dispose of the trial in accordance with law. Thus, quashing of the cognizance of the complainant case will have no effect on the merit the case against the petitioners, if any subsequently found. Since this is being disposed of simply on the fact that when specific provision has been provided, it is not proper to complicate the trial by invoking two different proceedings of trial, i.e., one of the police case the other of the complaint case. 18. With these observations, the criminal miscellaneous application disposed of. Disposed of accordingly.