Judgment :- (1) Heard Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Advocate, appearing with Mr. Mukteswar Maity on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sandip Ghosal, learned Advocate, appearing with Mr. Avijit Mukherjee on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Prabir Mitra, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State. (2) A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/477A/418/420/357/348/323/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 being made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, the Learned Magistrate ordered an investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whereupon, police recorded a FIR and registered Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 24 of 2004. After completion of investigation of the said case police filed a final report in Court stating that no case has been made out against the accused persons and prayed for their discharge from the case. When a notice was sent to the defacto-complainant, the petitioner herein, who appeared and filed a naraji petition, raising objection against the said final report. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties while accepted the final report took cognizance on the naraji petition. The petitioners challenged the said order in this criminal revision. (3) Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently contended that after considering the police report when the learned Magistrate come to a definite conclusion that the case needs further investigation the acceptance of such final report is not at all called for and wholly illegal. According to him the learned Magistrate ought to have sent the case for further investigation instead of taking cognizance on naraji petition. Mr. Basu prays that the order impugned be set aside and case be sent back to the Court below with a direction for further investigation by the police. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Sandip Ghosal, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused/opposite parties submitted before this Court that after acceptance of final report the learned Magistrate was duty bound to discharge the accuseds from the case. He further submitted once final report is accepted there is no scope for the Court to take cognizance on the naraji petition. He further submitted that this is a case where final report was submitted by the police twice and after the case being investigated thoroughly by two different police officers. He further submitted once final report is accepted there is no scope for the Court to take cognizance on the naraji petition. He further submitted that this is a case where final report was submitted by the police twice and after the case being investigated thoroughly by two different police officers. According to him police has come to a correct conclusion that dispute is civil in nature and very much justified in submitting the final report and the learned Magistrate having accepted such final report must made an order for discharge of the accuseds from the case. He further submitted after acceptance of final report taking of cognizance on the naraji petition is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and ought to be set aside. (5) Mr. Prabir Mitra, the learned Counsel appearing for the State conceded to the submissions of the learned Counsels of the parties, that the order impugned be set aside. He further submitted after the Court come to a conclusion that further investigation is necessary in the matter, acceptance of final report is wholly erroneous and illegal. (6) I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The law is well settled where in a case police recorded FIR and undertakes investigation, pursuant to an order of a Court passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when after completion of investigation submitted final report praying for discharge of the accused, it is always open to the learned Magistrate to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the police and to make an order for further investigation or to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code on such police report and in a straight way to issue process against the accused or he may accept the final report holding that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and discharge the accuseds from the case, Alternatively, the learned Magistrate may take cognizance under Section 190(1) (a) of the Code on the basis of the original complaint which he earlier sent to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then taking recourse to the actions provided under Section 200 or under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed a final order either under Section 203 or under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in the present case when the learned Magistrate after considering the police report has come to a definite conclusion that the investigation was perfunctory and suffers from various latches and lacunas and further investigation is necessary and disagreed with the views of the police, the acceptance of final report is wholly unjustified and illegal. The findings in one hand that the case requires further investigation and at the same time acceptance of final report is manifestly conflicting and cannot stand together. In my opinion, it is also not proper and legally permissible for the Court after accepting the final report, to take cognizance on the naraji petition. (7) In the result, the order impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Court below and it is directed that within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order, the learned Court after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the defacto-complainant and considering the final report shall pass necessary order in accordance with law. (8) Criminal section is directed to communicate this order to the learned Court below at once. (9) Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.