Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The accused petitioners have challenged the Order dated 211.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran whereby he had taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sections 323, 325 read with 34 IPC. They have also challenged the order dated 16.04.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran whereby the learned Judge had upheld the order dated 211.2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.2001 the complainant, Ganeshlal, had lodged a written report at Police Station, Kotwali, Baran against the present petitioners for the aforementioned offences. According to the FIR, he claimed that on 211.2001 while he was sitting at the tea stall, Laxminarayan’s younger son came and pulled him out from the tea stall and Hariom and Ghanshyam, elder sons of Laxminarayan assaulted him with lathis. He has sustained injury on his legs and his face. According to the complainant, even earlier they had threatened him and the complainant had lodged a report with the police against these persons. However, no action whatsoever was taken by the police. On the basis of the said report, a former FIR, FIR No. 825/2001, was registered for offences under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. But after a thorough investigation, after recording the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses, the police eventually filed a negative final report before the trial Court. Subsequently, the complainant moved an application praying that the case be re-opened. The learned trial Court deemed this application to be a protest petition and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as “the Code” for short). On the basis of the statement so recorded vide order dated 211.2002, the learned trial Court took the cognizance against the present petitioners. Since the present petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran. However, vide order dated 16.04.2005, the learned Special Judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. S.K. Jindal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that there was an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. Although the incident allegedly occurred on 211.2001, but the FIR was lodged after fourteen days, on 12.2001. There is no explanation for the said inordinate delay. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. S.K. Jindal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that there was an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. Although the incident allegedly occurred on 211.2001, but the FIR was lodged after fourteen days, on 12.2001. There is no explanation for the said inordinate delay. Such a delay weakens the case of the prosecution. Moreover, none of the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant. According to the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, no such incident took place as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the police was certainly justified in submitting the negative final report. Furthermore, even according to the complainant, there is an animosity between him and the present accused petitioners. According to the Counsel, it is a case where innocent persons are being roped in falsely. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has argued that the power under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing cognizance is extremely limited. At the stage of taking of the cognizance, the learned Magistrate is to be satisfied that prima facie case does exist against the accused persons. He is not empowered to sift the evidence to see if the trial will end in an eventual conviction. The statement of the complainant is extremely clear. The said statement is further corroborated by the Injury Report wherein it is clearly revealed that left fibula bone was fractured. Thus, there is direct evidence as well as circumstantial corroboration. Hence, he has supported the impugned order. 5. We have heared the learned Counsels for both the parties and have perused the impugned orders. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 CrPC, is a limited-one. Although the powers are vast, but they are to be exercised very sparingly and only in those cases where the abuse of the law or grave injustice is writ large. It is also a well settled principle of criminal law that the Magistrate is not bound by the negative final report submitted by the police. In fact he can disagree with the said report and can take cognizance against the offenders, provided he gives reasons for his disagreement with the report. In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report. In fact he can disagree with the said report and can take cognizance against the offenders, provided he gives reasons for his disagreement with the report. In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report. He has clearly stated that the injuries sustained by the complainant can neither be self -inflicted, nor caused by a sudden fall. He has believed the statement of the complainant. Looking to the injury report, there is sufficient prima facie evidence about the commission of the offence as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. Similarly, the learned Judge has not committed any illegality in upholding the order dated 211.2002. 7. In the result, we do not find any merit in this petition and we confirm the orders dated 211.2002 and 16.04.2005. However, as the case has been hanging fire since year 2001, in the interest of justice, we direct the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.