M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No. 1182 of 1998 whereby he took cognizance against them under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/149, I. P. C. and directed for issuance of non-bailable warrants against them. Two persons, namely, Rojudin and Nooruddin lost their lives in the incident. As the report of opposite party No. 2 was not taken down by the police, he moved an application to D. I. G. , Meerut and then the F. I. R. against the applicants came to the lodged. A Crime No. 245a of 1997 was registered. The applicants side had also made an F. I. R. which was registered as Crime No. 245 of 1997. The police submitted chargesheet in Crime No. 245 of 1997 registered at the instance of the present applicants but submitted final report against the applicants in Crime No. 245a of 1997. Opposite Party No. 2 Umadin filed a protest petition against the final report along with certain affidavits. By the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected final report submitted by the police and took cognizance against the applicants for the offences made mention of above. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the applicants is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not take into consideration the police report and protest petition with affidavits simultaneously. He could either take into consideration the protest petition and affidavits, treating the same as complaint and adopting the procedure prescribed for a complaint case or could take cognizance on the basis of police report. But the police report and the protest petition could not be jumbled up by him to take cognizance against the applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants has urged that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is perfectly illegal that he summoned the applicants on simultaneous consideration of the police report and the protest petition. He has tried to support his argument by making reference to certain rulings. The learned counsel for the applicants has urged that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is perfectly illegal that he summoned the applicants on simultaneous consideration of the police report and the protest petition. He has tried to support his argument by making reference to certain rulings. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, the argument from the side of opposite party No. 1, State and opposite party No. 2 is that by filing the protest petition opposite party No. 2 only invited the attention of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the final report submitted by the police was not capable of being accepted and there was enough evidence collected during investigation for the taking of congnizance against the applicants. The opposite parties are supporting the impugned order as being perfectly justified and in accordance with law, relying on certain rulings. ( 4 ) IT is proper to draw conclusion on the analyses of the legal position emerging from interpretation of the provisions of Cr. P. C. through various ruling. Learned counsel for the applicants has first cited the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 : (1968 Cri LJ 97 ). It was ruled in the said case that the Magistrate has no power to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet, if the police has submitted final report under Section 169, Cr. P. C. that no case was made out for sending up an accused for trial. There can be no quarrel with this proposition of law, but it has no application here. The obvious reason is that in the case at hand, the learned Magistrate did not direct the police to submit a charge-sheet against the applicants. This ruling, therefore, relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is besides the point. So is the case with regards to another citation - Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 SC 1285 : (1985 Cri LJ 1179) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. This ruling, therefore, relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is besides the point. So is the case with regards to another citation - Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 SC 1285 : (1985 Cri LJ 1179) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. It was ruled in the said case that where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the offence and decides to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, he must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the final report forwarded by the police. The third ruling relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants in Ram Kumar v. (Smt.) Kalawati, 1991 All Cri C 24 (Allahabad High Court ). It was held in the said case that if the Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on protest petition, then it became a complaint and he could not have relied upon affidavits. In the case at hand, the Magistrate did not treat the protest petition as a complaint, because he did not record the statement of the complainant or the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. This ruling, therefore, does not help the applicants. ( 5 ) RATHER correct legal position flows from other rulings of the Apex Court relied upon by the opposite parties which squarely apply to the present situation. It was held in the case of H. S. Bains v. State, (1980) 4 SCC 631 : ( AIR 1980 SC 1883 ) : (1980 Cri LJ 1308) that if the police submitted final report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. on the basis of investigation, the Magistrate disagreeing with the report, could take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (b) and direct issue of process. The same principle was reiterated in the case of M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1989) 2 SCC 132 : ( AIR 1989 SC 885 ) : (1989 Cri LJ 963) that despite police report that no case was made out against the accused, Magistrate could take cognizance of offence under Section 190 (1) (b) taking into account the statement of witnesses made during investigation and issue process. ( 6 ) NO doubt, in the present case, the Magistrate has made reference to the protest petition and affidavits filed therewith by opposite party No. 2, but it is simply to indicate that the complainant (opposite party No. 2) was objecting to the submission of police report. The protest petition simply provided the foundation to the Magistrate to closely scrutinize the evidence and material including the evidence of the witnesses contained in the police case diary. There were statements of two eye-witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. , namely, Umardeen and Tarabuddin supporting the prosecution story as contained in F. I. R. There were also injury reports of injured persons as recorded in the case diary. May be that the learned Magistrate could not make use of selective words to express himself, but the true import and purport of the order passed by him is that he took cognizance against the applicants under S. 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. on the basis of the evidence contained in police report (case diary) itself. Undisputedly, the Magistrate has not recorded the statement of complainant (opposite party No. 2) under S. 200, Cr. P. C. and has not followed the procedure provided for complaint cases. It would, thus, be deemed that the Magistrate was considering only police report while taking cognizance of the case against the present applicants in exercise of powers under S. 190 (1) (b ). It is settled law that when a final report submitted by the police after investigation, three courses are open to the Magistrate. He may accept the final report and drop the proceedings after hearing the complainant and first informant; he may disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the police and straightway take cognizance in exercise of powers under S. 190 (1) (b); he may order further investigation. In the present case, the Magistrate has taken cognizance on the police report itself on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation, disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the police. Therefore, the impugned order is perfectly legal, not suffering from any error whatsoever. As stated above, the protest petition and the affidavits filed by the complainant (opposite party No. 2) simply laid foundation inviting Magistrate to closely scrutinize the police report and the evidence and material collected during investigation. Therefore, the impugned order is perfectly legal, not suffering from any error whatsoever. As stated above, the protest petition and the affidavits filed by the complainant (opposite party No. 2) simply laid foundation inviting Magistrate to closely scrutinize the police report and the evidence and material collected during investigation. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties have rightly placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. , 1995 All Cri C 129 : (1995 All LJ 1679) in which the law, on the analyses of various rulings, was summarized thus in para 12 (of All Cri C) : (para 13 of All LJ) :"12. In view of the relevant law as discussed above the Magistrate was competent to consider the protest petition, the case diary, the first information report and other papers submitted with the police report and take cognizance under S. 190 (1) (b) of the Cr. P. C. Simply because he also considered the affidavits filed along with the protest petition it cannot be said that he proceeded under S. 190 (1) (a) or should have proceeded under S. 190 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. The Magistrate had a discretion either to proceed under S. 190 (1) (a) or under S. 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. Simply because he considered protest petition and the affidavits, it cannot be said that he should have proceeded under Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. before passing the summoning order. " ( 8 ) THE applicants are harping on hyper-technicality that in the impugned order the learned Magistrate made reference to the protest petition and the affidavits filed therewith. But the truth of the matter is that he did not act upon the same. The protest petition having been presented before him, he was inspired to closely scrutinize evidence and material collected during investigation as contained in police case diary. In taking cognizance and summoning the applicants of this revision, he relied upon the material which formed part of the police report. To conclude, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate would be deemed to have taken cognizance of the case under S. 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. The revision has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. The stay order granted on 19-3-1998 is vacated. Petition dismissed. .