ORDER: The question involved in this case is whether the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponnani has committed any illegal irregularity or impropriety in the matter of taking cognizance of the offences under Secs.341, 324, 307 and 427 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code as also Sec.3 read with Sec.25 of the Arms Act against the petitioners herein. The F.I. statement was taken based on Ex.A-1 complaint presented by the first respondent on 27.9.1996 with regard to an incident which is alleged to have taken place more than 4 years preceding the said date, on 22.9.1992. According to the petitioners the court below has committed an abuse of the process of the court in the matter of taking cognizance, not only because of the inordinate delay involved in the matter, but also because of the gross negligence on the part of the complainant to prosecute his cause with due diligence. Yet another irregularity pointed out is the failure on the part of the learned Magistrate to call for and verify the result of investigation conducted by the police earlier with regard to the very same occurrence. 2. On 22.9.1992, Crime No.144 of 1992 of Changaramkulam police station was registered by the 1st petitioner herein alleging offence under Secs.341 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as also Sec.3 read with Sec.25 with the Arms Act against the present 2nd respondent. On the very next day, based on information given by the present 2nd respondent, Crime No.147 of 1992 of the very same police station was also registered. In due course, Crime No.144 of 1992 ended up in a charge-sheet while the latter case ended up in a refer report, produced in the case as Annexure-A2, on 20.11.1992. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, based on the charge-sheet in Crime Nos.144 of 1992, C.C.No.70 of 1995 of the J.F.C.M. Court, Ponnani was proceeded with and the case has progressed in the matter of trial and soon after the incident, the 2nd respondent filed from India and worked abroad. It was only on 27.9.1996 that he thought it fit to file a private complaint with regard to the very same cause of action, as was mentioned in Crime No.147 of 1992. It was only on 27.9.1996 that he thought it fit to file a private complaint with regard to the very same cause of action, as was mentioned in Crime No.147 of 1992. The impact of the cognizance taken pursuant to Annexure-A1 complaint is that it may have to be treated as a counter case to C.C.No.70 of 1995 and even the proceedings held in the case so far may be affected. It is pointed out that in this state of affairs, the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent should not have been entertained at all. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as also the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. There is no doubt that Sec.202 gives wide discretion to the Magistrate in the matter of taking cognizance of an offence. Postponing the issue of process and enquiring into the case or directing an investigation by the police will arise only if he does not straight away deem it fit to take cognizance. Nevertheless, the discretion involved in the matter is a judicial discretion which has to be exercised taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. The main question that has to be decided in the case is whether in the nature of the case, the final report filed by the. police in Crime No. 147 of 1992 aforementioned should have been taken into account before making cognizance of the case. No decision of this Court or of the Supreme Court has been placed before me which will throw light on the above aspect. But the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of the decision in Daleep Singh v. Magan, 1996 Crl.L.J. 190. The contention raised in that case was that the Magistrate was bound to send for the report of the S.H.O. in the matter of final report filed based on the information given by the complainant in the private complaint before taking cognizance. The learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court who decided the case dealt with the same in some extenso. 7. The learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court who decided the case dealt with the same in some extenso. 7. The court noted that the scope of enquiry under Sec.202 is the ascertainment of the truth or falsity of the allegations made in the complaint on the materials placed by the complainant before the court for the limited purpose of finding out whether the prima facie case for issue of process Mas been made out and for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. Nevertheless, the court has a duty to protect the interest of the absent accused also because at the particular stage, the accused has no say in the matter and the matter is decided without notice to him. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent the accused therein from being called upon to face obviously frivolous complaint and to find what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate has a duty not only to bring to book a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made in the complaint but also to protect the interest of the absent accused in such matters. What all matters he should take into consideration to arrive at the conclusion that he should take cognizance of the offence, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He has necessarily to consider the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Sec.200, Crl.P.C. as also of the witnesses examined under Sec.202 of the Crl.P.C. Along with that, he has also to consider the result of enquiry or investigation if any, held by the police. It cannot be said that the said data is not an essential factor. The consideration of the materials under Sec.202 of the Crl.P.C. is not an empty formality and cannot be done in a perfunctory or mechanical or by adopting a superficial approach. 8. As far as the instant case is concerned, it is admitted in Annexure I itself that the complainant who was abroad after the alleged incident came down to India at least on two occasions. He never thought it fit to get correct details about the progress of the alleged complaint. 8. As far as the instant case is concerned, it is admitted in Annexure I itself that the complainant who was abroad after the alleged incident came down to India at least on two occasions. He never thought it fit to get correct details about the progress of the alleged complaint. It is also important that Crime No.147 of 1992 initiated by him was based on information given on the day after the occurrence and that Crime No. 144 of 1992 had already been registered on the very same day of occurrence. What were the reasons for closing the investigation in Crime No.147 of 1992 was hence a very important factor that should have entered the mind of the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance of the case. The inordinate delay between the date of taking cognizance and the date of occurrence is also a very important aspect which should have weighed against the acceptance of the complaint for further proceedings. 9. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance of the case through the impugned order. The order is hence set aside and the case is remitted to the learned Magistrate with a direction to call for and consider the final report filed in Crime No.147 of 1992 and consider the question of taking cognizance or otherwise. The impact of the case in the ongoing trial in C.C.No.70 of 1995 will also be borne in mind while the learned Magistrate exercises his discretion. Considering the fact that already about 7 years have gone by after the date of occurrence, the learned Magistrate is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as indicated above.