PRASADA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the Accused No. 2 in C. C. No. 15700/99 on the file of the JMFC, II Court, Mangalore seeking for quashing the above case registered against him and three other accused. ( 2 ) ON a complaint lodged by the respondent, who is the Deputy Manager of the Corporation Bank, Head Office-Mangalore, against the petitioner and three other Police Officers, for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 342, 324, 353, 355, and 504 IPC read with section 34 IPC, the learned Magistrate ordered for investigation of the case by referring the complaint under Section 15 (3) Cr. P. C. to the superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. After conducting the investigation, a 'b' report was submitted by the superintendent of Police, Mangalore. Since the complainant filed his objections to the 'b' report, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint and ordered for registering the case against the petitioner and three other Police Officers and for issue of process to them, by his order dated 5. 8. 1997. The said order is challenged now by the petitioner in the present proceedings. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the following reasons:- a) The learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offences alleged before recording the sworn-statement of the complainant. b) The learned Magistrate has neither accepted nor rejected the 'b' report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, mangalore nor he adverted to the said 'b' report at the time of registering the case against the petitioner and the other accused. c) The learned Magistrate has not indicated in respect of which offence, the case has been registered against the petitioner in the impugned order. d) The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind as to whether any of the offences alleged are disclosed from the facts narrated in the complaint or in the sworn statement given by the respondent herein. Elaborating this contention, it is pointed out by him that the respondent was arrested by the Police on 15. 4. d) The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind as to whether any of the offences alleged are disclosed from the facts narrated in the complaint or in the sworn statement given by the respondent herein. Elaborating this contention, it is pointed out by him that the respondent was arrested by the Police on 15. 4. 1995 in connection with the case registered against him for the offences under Section 353, 506 read with Section 114 IPC in Crime No. 66/1995 of Urwa police Station and he has produced before the JMFC. , I Court on the same day and he was remanded to the judicial custody by virtue of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and subsequently, he was released on bail on 17. 4. 1995 on the application filed by him. It is also pointed out by him that the learned Magistrate has specifically noted at the time when the respondent was produced before him on 15. 4. 1995, that he did not make complaint regarding any illtreatment by the Police when he was produced before him and without taking into consideration these facts and without applying his mind, the learned Magistrate has ordered for registering the case against the petitioner for the offences alleged in the complaint under sections 341 and 342 IPC. It is further pointed out by him that though the complainant/respondent is not a public servant, the learned magistrate ordered for registering the case for the offence under section 353 IPC, which is alleged in the complaint. He therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the case is to be remanded to the Trial Court for consideration of the matter afresh, after following the correct procedure. ( 4 ) THE respondent filed the statement of objections to this petitions tating that all the above referred offences in the complaint are disclosed from the facts narrated in the complaint and the facts stated in the sworn statement given by the complainant and therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in registering the case against the petitioner and three others for the above said offences. ( 5 ) ON a perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheet of the case maintained by the learned Magistrate, it is found that the learned magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint, before registering the case and it is only after recording the sworn statement of the respondent, the learned Magistrate ordered for registering the case against the petitioner and other accused, as could be seen from the order passed, which is not permissible under law. It is further found that the learned Magistrate has not referred the 'b' report and has not indicated in the impugned order as to whether the said 'b' report filed by the Police has been rejected and if so, for what reason, the same has been rejected. It is also found that the learned Magistrate has not considered the question as to whether the respondent is a public servant and whether there are any grounds to proceed against the petitioner and other Police Officers for the offence under Section 353 IPC, as alleged in the complaint. It is also found in the operative portion of the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has not indicated in respect of which offences, cognizance has been taken by him in this case and the case is registered against the petitioner and the other accused. It is further found that the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the fact that the respondent was remanded to the judicial custody under the lawful orders passed in crime No. 66/1995 by the same Court, to find out whether there are any grounds to proceed against the petitioner and other Police officers for the offences under Sections 341 and 342 IPC alleged in the complaint. Further, the learned Magistrate has considered the question as to whether sanction is necessary to prosecute the petitioner and other Police officers, without giving any opportunity to all the accused to submit their say in the matter. The said question ought to have been left open to be considered by the Court after giving opportunity to all the accused to submit their say in the matter at a later stage. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is liable to be set aside and the. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is liable to be set aside and the. matter is to be remanded to the learned Magistrate for fresh disposal in accordance with law, by following the correct procedure. In, the result, this petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 5. 8. 1997 passed by the Court beiow registering the case against the petitioner and the other accused and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law by following the correct procedure. --- *** --- .