JUDGMENT Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.: This is an application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed at the instance of petitioner Ram Chandra Neogy and seven others against the opposite parties seeking to quash the proceeding being Case No. C-743 of 1987 and/or to set aside the order dated 2nd March, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, 24 Parganas(South) issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioners for their apprehension. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are as under:- Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 have their permanent residence within the jurisdiction of Manicktolla Police Station and the petitioner No.8 has his permanent residence within the jurisdiction of Burtolla Police Station in the metropolis of Calcutta. 3. During the later part of 1980 and even prior thereto, the area and/or the locality where the petitioners are residing was severly affected by incessant show of violence and vandalism by a person called Sri Hemen Mondal and his associates which included one Shri Ashok Kundu and several cases were pending against Sri Kundu and others. 4. That on 1st September, 1987 at about 23.25 hrs. Sub-Inspector of Manicktolla Police Station lodged an information at the police station stating inter alia, that in the company of the Assistant Commissioner(II), Eastern Suburban Division, Officer-in-Charge of section 01 and other police personnel he had been to Aurobinda setu around 9 p.m. and had found a mob of2000 strong persons assaulting a man and the members of the Assembly were variously armed the thereafter the assaulted person was put under a lorry which was parked there and the person suffered bleeding injuries, he was, however, rescued by the police personnel and admitted to NRS Hospital. On enquiry it was ascertained that Ashok Kundu, an associate of Hemen Mondal, who at about 20:45 hrs. was assaulted by an agitated mob. The information so conveyed by S.I. Sri S. Moitra led to the registration of Manicktolla Police Station Case No. 173 dated 1.9.87 under sections 148/149/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code against 2000 unknown persons and subsequently section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the said case. 6. On 21.9.1987 Smt. Sadhana Kundu, mother of said Ashok Kundu lodged a petition of complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the ld. 6. On 21.9.1987 Smt. Sadhana Kundu, mother of said Ashok Kundu lodged a petition of complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the ld. A.C.J.M., Sealdah allegaing, inter alia, that on 1.9.87 while Ashok Kundu with his sister was returning from his maternal uncle's house at about 8.30 p.m., a few persons dragged Ashok Kundu forcibly in an auto-rickshaw towards Aurobinda Setu. The sister of Ashok Kundu informed the complainant at their house and the complainant and her son ran towards Aurobinda Setu and subsequently found 14/15 persons were assaulting one person with lathi, rod, fists and blows etc. and the said person was lying on the ground. The lying man was crying for help and from the voice the complainant understood that he was her son Ashok. 7. It has further been submitted by her that the traffic came to a stand still position and shortly after police arrived and the persons who were assaulting Ashok left the place after talking to the police. The police removed Ashok to hospital and the complainant also followed them. Thereafter, it was informed to the complainant that Ashok had died. Since the complainant came to learn subsequently that no case was started by the police over the death of her son, Ashok, she filed that petition of complaint before the court. On receipt of the aforesaid petition of complaint, the A.C.J.M., Sealdah passed an order forwarding the aforesaid application to D.C.D.D., Lalbazar, Calcutta to investigate the offences treating the petition of complaint as F.I.R. under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. 8. As a case had already been started, the said petition of complaint was amalgamated and got merged with that police case. 9. The information conveyed by S.L Sri S. Moitra and the complaint of Smt. Sadhana Kundu dated 21st September, 1987 was investigated in the same case namely Manicktolla P.S. Case No. 173 dated 1.9.87 and on 20th June, 1989, the ld. A.C.J.M., Sealdah took up for consideration the final report dated 9th May, 1989 submitted on completion of the investigation of the aforesaid Manicktolla P.S. Case. 10. The ld. A.C.J.M., Sealdah took up for consideration the final report dated 9th May, 1989 submitted on completion of the investigation of the aforesaid Manicktolla P.S. Case. 10. The ld. A.C.J.M, Sealdah on perusal of the report concluded on the available materials that the report does not contain anything which may be taken cognizance of , but by the same order he has further recorded that since the complainant Sadhana Kundu feels aggrieved by the police report in its final form he proceeded to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the petition of complaint filed by Smt. Sadhana Kundu and fixed 21st July, 1989 for enquiry as contemplated under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the complainant respondent to be ready with witnesses. 11. Thereafter on diverse dates, the learned A.C.J.M. continued with enquiry under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded statements of witnesses and also took in the record several documents submitted on behalf of the complainant/respondent. Subsequently on consideration of the evidence on record, the learned A.C.J.M. arrived at a conclusion that there is prima facie case for issuance of process against the petitioners under sections 148/149/364/302 of the Indian Penal Coder and sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate has also issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners and by the self same order, the ld. Magistrate also directed the complainant/respondent to submit necessary papers and to deposit process fee for issuance of warrant of arrest. 12. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the continuances of the aforesaid proceeding in Case No. 743 of 1897 and the orders passed therein, and in particular the order dated 2nd March, 1995 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Sealdah, 24 Parganas(S), the petitioners filed the aforesaid application alleging that the learned Magistrate acted illegally and beyond the jurisdiction vested in him by law in treating the petition submitted by the complainant/respondent on 5th June, 1989 as a petition of complaint and the said petition did not satisfy the requirements of a complaint as envisaged in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. It has also been alleged that the learned A.C.J.M. did not act in terms of judicial precedence enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to acceptance of the Final Report. 14. Hence, they have come up for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding. 15. 13. It has also been alleged that the learned A.C.J.M. did not act in terms of judicial precedence enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to acceptance of the Final Report. 14. Hence, they have come up for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding. 15. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The de facto complainant, Sadhana Kundu, opposite party No.1 herein, although appeared before the court in person, yet, she could not make any appropriate submission with regard the case in hand. 16. Upon hearing all the parties and materials available from the record it has come out in connection with the present matter that on the information of S. Moitra, there has been registration of Manicktolla Police Station Case No. 173 dated 1.9.87 under sections 148/149/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code against some 200 unknown persons and subsequently section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the said case and the opposite party No.1, Smt. Sadhana Kundu filed one petition of complaint on 21.9.87 before the learned AC.J.M., Sealdah complaining about the aforesaid incident and in particular the death of her son Ashok Kundu and the said petition was forwarded to the concerned police station under section 156(3) with a direction to treat the said petition of complaint as F.I.R. and to start the investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 17. As required under the law, the aforesaid application, sent to the police under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., got merged with the Manicktolla P.S. Case No. 173 dated 1.9.87 and the police after investigation submitted a final report dated 9th May, 1989 on completion of the investigation of the aforesaid cases. 18. The said final report came up for consideration on 20.6.89 together with the applications filed by the respondent/opposite party No.1 on 5.6.89 alleging that police did not investigate into the case properly and impartially and both the matters were disposed of by impugned order dated 20.6.89 and the aforesaid impugned order and specially the continuance of the aforesaid proceeding of case No. C-743 of 1987 has been challenged before this court by this revisional application and the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding and/or to set aside the order dated 20.6.89. 19. 19. Sri Sekhar Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted before me that the impugned order suffers from inherent contradictions and illegality in itself inasmuch as in recording one part of the order it has been held by the learned Magistrate that there was nothing in the C.D., to take cognizance of the offence against the persons named in the petition of complaint and at the second phase, the learned Magistrate choose to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No.1, Smt. Sadhana Kundu under section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. which got merged with the aforesaid police case. 20. He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance by the same order in the manner as he did in this case without the aforesaid order being set aside as per the provisions of section 398 of Cr. P.C. 21. He has further submitted that the petition dated 5.6.89 by the opposite party No.1 before the concerned court of ld. AC.J.M., did not contain any allegation of commission of offence and as such it .cannot at all be constituted as a petition of complaint as defined in section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that view of the fact, the learned Magistrate was not at all authorized to take congizance under section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. as the basic facts and materials on which allegation was founded were not mentioned in the said petition. 22. Sri Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed his reliance upon a decision reported in ALR. 22. Sri Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed his reliance upon a decision reported in ALR. 1980 SC 1883 and in this connection he has further submitted that a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under section 156(3) and receives a police report under section 173(1), may, thereafter, do one of three things: (1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code if he thinks fit. Thereafter, he may dismiss the complaint or issue process as the case may be. 23. Referring to the above decision, it has been contended by him that the impugned order dated 20.6.89 suffers from inherent illegalities inasmuch as the learned Magistrate at the first instance opted for not to proceed after perusal of the Case Diary, but in the second phase, he proceeded to take cognizance on the basis of the original complaint filed by Smt. Sadhana Kundu and proposed to hold an enquiry as contemplated under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has, therefore, been submitted by him that both the courses, as above, are not available to the learned Magistrate and as such the impugned order cannot at all sustain. 24. The learned Public Prosecutor in course of his submission, has also conceded that the impugned order suffers from inherent illegalities as the learned Magistrate is not entitled to adopt both the courses as he did in connection with this case an as such he was also of the view that the impunged order should be set aside and the instant proceeding should also be quashed. 25. 25. I have perused the above decision with meticulous care and applying the ratio of the aforesaid case to the facts and circumstances available in connection with this case, I am of the clear opinion that in any event, the impugned order cannot be said to be an illegal one inasmuch as it is open to the Magistrate in a situation like this that on receipt a report of the police, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(b) and straightway issue process and this he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report, whether an offence has been made out or not. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the police and he may decide to issue process even if the police recommend that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further. 26. The Magistrate, after receiving the police report, may, without issuing process or dropping the proceeding decide to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statements upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether to dismiss the complaint or issue process. The ordering of an investigation by the Magistrate earlier under section 156(3) and receiving of a report under section 173 will not have the effect of total effacement of the complaint and that will not present any difficulty whatsoever to the Magistrate in proceeding with an enquiry under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, the learned Magistrate will not be barred from proceeding under sections 200, 203 and 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 27. Here, looking into the aforesaid impugned order, I find although it was observed by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order that he found nothing in the Case Diary, to take cognizance of the offence against the persons named in the petition of complaint, yet, he did not choose to drop the present proceeding (emphasis added) and instead of dropping the proceeding, he decided to take cognizance of the offence, on the basis of the petition of complaint filed by Smt. Sadhana Kundu and then proceeded to hold an enquiry as contemplated under section 200 of Cr. P.C. By doing that, I hold that, he was absolutely within his competence to record such and order and in doing that I find no illegality or irregularity, whatsoever, has been committed by the learned Magistrate and as such I hold that the decision cited above does not come to any aid to the petitioners in getting the desired relief or quashing of the present proceeding inasmuch as in recording the order impugned, the ld. Magistrate has acted absolutely within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the decision, referred to above. 28. In that view of the fact, I find that there is no cogent materials for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding. 29. In this proceeding, another challenge has been made with regard to the issuance of warrant of arrest against the present petitioners alleging that as per sub-section (2) of section 204 of Cr.P.C. no summons of warrant shall be issued under sub-section(1) until a list of prosecution of witnesses has been filed. 30. True it is that in the instant case before issuance of the warrant of arrest, no list of the witnesses has been filed and by the self-same order, the de facto complainant was directed to deposit process fee, but the aforesaid section does not restrict the court to invoke the provisions of section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of warrant of arrest in lieu of, or in addition to, summons after recording reasons. 31. Here, on perusal of the impugned order dated 2.3.95, whereby the warrant of arrest directed to be issued against the present petitioners, I find that the learned Magistrate has recorded adequate reason and thereafter directed issuance of warrant of arrest. 32. So, on that count also, I find no illegality in the order itself for issuance of warrant of arrest. 33. In view of what I have stated earlier, I hold that there is no merit in the revisional application and as such the same should be dismissed. 34. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of accordingly. 35. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. 36. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned court below for information and necessary compliance with a direction to proceed with this case with utmost expedition. Revisional application dismissed. Interim order vacated.