R. C. DEEPAK, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No. 3 (Jiyaurrahman), learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated the facts of the case are that Shakeela Khatoon is the daughter of above named respondent. She is married to Azizullah (petitioner No. 2 ). There is alleged demand of dowry and torture to the daughter of the respondent and relating to the occurrence a case as case crime No. 140 of 2000 under Section 498a, 323, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 D. P. Act is registered at police station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar. The investigation into the case was made, but the the investigating officer submitted the final report No. 39 of 2000 on 31. 8. 2000 with the recommendation to proceed under Section 182 IPC against the informant. The informant/respondent filed protest petition on 12. 7. 2001, but the final report was accepted on 26. 11. 2000, Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal of protest petition, he filed criminal revision No. 53 of 2002. The learned revisional court did not interfere in the order of acceptance of final report, but quashed the recommendation for initiation of proceeding under Section 182 ipc on 15. 7. 2003. The respondent did not agitate the order of revisional court i. e. maintenance of acceptance of final report, but the petitioners/accused in the FIR filed criminal misc. application No. 2000 of 2003 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. before this Court and vide order dated 31. 7. 2003 this Court stayed the operation of order dated 15. 7. 2003. The application is still pending for disposal. The respondent filed complaint case No. 3533 of 2003 relating to the occurrence the subject matter of the F. I. R. Against the petitioners/accused. The learned magistrate after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. passed an order dated 23. 11. 2004 and summoned the accused under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with section 3/4 D. P. Act vide order dated 23. 4. 2004. The accused concerned filed criminal revision no. 11 of 2005 against the order of summoning, hut the same was dismissed by the learned revisional court on 16. 11. 2005. 11. 2004 and summoned the accused under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with section 3/4 D. P. Act vide order dated 23. 4. 2004. The accused concerned filed criminal revision no. 11 of 2005 against the order of summoning, hut the same was dismissed by the learned revisional court on 16. 11. 2005. ( 3 ) THE present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 24. 11. 2003 and 16. 11. 2005. ( 4 ) THE principle submission raised before this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the final report was accepted and the order quashing the recommendation for initiating proceeding under Section 182 IPC against the informant has been stayed by (his court, the complaint regarding the same subject matter is not permissible under the law. A perusal of order dated 26. 11. 2000/ acceptance of final report indicates that the victim Shakeela Khatoon and her mother have supported the prosecution case, but none others. Even then, the learned magistrate accepted the final report. When the final report is submitted, the following courses are open to the magistrate : (i) if satisfied, accept the final report and drop the proceeding ; (ii) to disagree with the report, summon the accused ; and (iii) to direct for further investigation, but in presence of the statements of the victim and her mother supporting prosecution case, the learned magistrate did not disagree with the final report and accepted the same. At this very juncture the question arises whether the final report was accepted on the basis of the evidence or the contents. The facts and the allegations made in the F. I. R. are the subject matter of evidence, their truthfulness can only be worked out by adducing evidence, but no such opportunity was provided to the informant. ( 5 ) IN view of the above facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the view to hold that after the acceptance of final report the only remedy available to the informant is to file complaint and to adduce evidence in support of his contention and the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 cr. P. C. have been brought on record. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity both, the courts below did commit no wrong in passing the impugned orders. P. C. have been brought on record. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity both, the courts below did commit no wrong in passing the impugned orders. ( 6 ) THE petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( 7 ) LET a copy of this order be furnished to the learned A. G. A. free of cost today for intimating the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law. . .