Judgment D.K. Sinha, J.-The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of the order impugned dated 24.9.2002 passed in P.C.R Case No. 224 of 2001 whereby and whereunder after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on the protest petition of the informant O.P. No. 2 the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal found a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 452/380/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners and accordingly the petitioners were called upon to appear. 2. The prosecution case was that the O.P. No. 2 (Abu Tahir) lodged an F.I.R. vide Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 126 of 2000 against the petitioners, registered under Sections 452/380/436 read with Section 34 I.P.C. alleging inter alia that in the night intervening 3/4th July, 2000 he was awaken by his wife and he spotted that the petitioner Khalil Sk. son of Kamshud Sheikh after entering into his room was holding pistol in one hand and lighting torch by another hand. In the said light the informant claimed to identify the another petitioner Ashu Sheikh of Mianjan tola who broke open the box in his room and both the petitioners took out Rs. 7,000/including silver jewelleries worth Rs. 5,000/and garments worth Rs. 2,000/- from his box and proceeded from the room followed by the informant to the courtyard where he found the other four named accused petitioners, were spotted and identified in the light of lantern. Yet, the 5th person standing in the courtyard could not be identified. When all the 7 accused proceeded from the courtyard the informant came out and witnessed that the fire broke out in the last room of his house. He raised alarm and the witnesses assembled there who claimed having seen the petitioners running away from the place of occurrence but they did not chase by giving first priority to extinguish the fire. After the fire was finally put out, the informant found that all the articles which were kept in the dwelling room including bed, clothes and cot were burnt. Disclosing the genesis of the occurrence the O.P. No.2 Abu Tahir alleged that he had sold a piece of land as against Rs.10,000/- to some one but the petitioner Ashu Sheikh was demanding Rs. 5,000/- by way of Randari tax. The police after investigation submitted final form on 31.3.2001 exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioners. Disclosing the genesis of the occurrence the O.P. No.2 Abu Tahir alleged that he had sold a piece of land as against Rs.10,000/- to some one but the petitioner Ashu Sheikh was demanding Rs. 5,000/- by way of Randari tax. The police after investigation submitted final form on 31.3.2001 exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioners. The informant O.P. No.2 having come to know filed a protest petition which was converted into a complaint by the A.C.J.M., Rajmahal and after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the impugned order was passed on 24.9.2002 in the following manner:- "From perusal of the protest petition, it transpires that complainant has failed to give exhaustive list of the witnesses. In this way the requirement of the procedure for taking cognizance in a sessions case is not complete. Although, there are some materials on Section 436 I.P.C. also, due to this procedural infirmity accused persons cannot be summoned under Section 436 I.P.C. However, the materials available on the record give sufficient ground for further proceedings under Sections 452/ 380/34 I.P.C. I find and hold that a prima facie case under Sections 452/380/34 I.P.C. is made out against all the accused persons named in the protest petition. Complainant is directed to furnish necessary requisites within ten days. To 5.10.2002 for appearance of the accused.". 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Mr. D.K. Dubey submitted that the Investigating Officer had examined altogether 17 witnesses in course of investigation and it was found that no occurrence as alleged by the informant had taken place. On the other hand, it was gathered by the I.O. that the complainant O.P. No.2 and certain members of his family were accused in the murder case of Asraf Ali and since the petitioners were the close relatives of Asraf Ali, the informant implicated them falsely. The police then having been satisfied recommended that a case, therefore, under Sections 182/211 I.P.C. be instituted against the O.P. No.2. 4. The learned Counsel further subm itted that the prosecution of the petitioners and the cognizance of the offence under Sections 452/380/34.I.P.C. on the basis of the protest petition and after an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cannot sustain hence, not maintainable. He relied upon unreported decision of Cr. M. P. No. 1397 of 2005 on 21.3.2006 in which the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000)1 S.C.C. (Criminal) 275 was quoted. He relied upon unreported decision of Cr. M. P. No. 1397 of 2005 on 21.3.2006 in which the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000)1 S.C.C. (Criminal) 275 was quoted. The Apex Court observed therein:- "After going through the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the aforesaid two judgments (Raj Kishore Prasad vs. Slate of Bihar and Ranjit Singh vs. 5tate of Punjab) and on examining the order dated 10.6.1997 passed by the Magistrate we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Magistrate could not have issued process against those persons who may have been named in the First Information Report as accused persons, but not charge-sheeted in the charge-sheet that was filed by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as those persons against whom charge-sheet has not been filed, they can be arrayed as "accused persons" in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when some evidence or materials are brought on record in course of trial or they could also be arrayed as "accused persons" only when a reference is made either by the Magistrate or while passing an order of commitment or by the learned Sessions Judge to the High Court and the High Court, on examining the materials, comes to the conclusion that sufficient materials exist against them even though the police might not have filed charge-sheet, as has been explained in the latter three Judge Bench decision. Neither of the contingencies has arisen in the case in hand." 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find from the impugned order dated 24.9.2002 that the learned A.C.J.M., Rajmahal having been satisfied with the materials collected on the record in course of enquiry on the protest petition of the O.P. No.2 in P.C.R. No. 224 of 2001 arising out of Rajmahal P.S, Case No. 126 of 2000 found prima facie case against the petitioners herein for the offence under Sections 452/380/34 I.P.C. although they were exonerated from criminal liability in the final form submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The nature of the offence as alleged relates to warrant case by Judicial Magistrates as discussed in Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that it was beyond the competence of the A.C.J.M., Rajmahal to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioners who were exonerated from their criminal liability in course of investigation by the police and also in the backdrop that the Investigating Officer had recommended for institution of case against the informant O.P. No. 2 under Sections 182/211 I.P.C. I am of the firm view that submission is not tenable under the law as well as on facts. 7. The Apex Court in Union Public Service Commission vs. S. Papaiah and Others, reported in (1997)7 Supreme Court Cases 614, in similar situation relied upon the decision of the Bench reported in (1985)2 S.C.C. 537 (Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police) wherein it was observed:- " There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not Inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and 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, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report." 8. Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure deals with power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence it speaks:- (i) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed." 9. Section 319 gives ample power to the Court to take cognizance and add any person not being accused before it and to try him alongwith accused persons sent up for trial. The scope of the Section is wide enough to include cases instituted on complaint as held by the Apex Court in Sohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 2158. The "expression any person not being the accused" clearly covers any person who is not being tried in the Court and the very purpose of enacting this provision shows that even persons dropped by the police during investigation against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence cannot be exonerated by the criminal court rather may be included m prima facie satisfaction to proceed against. 10. In the instant case, after submission of the final form under Section 173 by the Investigating Officer exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioners herein, a protest petition was filed which was treated as a complaint under Section 200 and after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned A.C.J.M., Rajmahal within his competence find prima facie case for the alleged offence under Sections 452/380/34 I.P.C. and took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. The learned Counsel failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order aforesaid so as to call for interference by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The A.C.J.M., Rajmahal was Justified and within his competence to take cognizance in the given situation against the petitioners for the alleged offence not being the one to be tried by the Sessions Court. 11. There being no merit, this petition is dismissed.