JUDGMENT (1) Petitioners in these two cases have sought for quashing the entire proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore in CC 81/2008 and to set aside the order passed by the CJM and, also the order in Crl. Rev. 202/2008 in the former case and Crl. Rev.203/2008 in the later case. (2) The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Ullal police on 11-1-2007 and another complaint dated 29-8-2007 alleging the offences of forgery and cheating under Ss. 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 506, IPC. Complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 13/2007 and 224/2007 respectively. Learned Magistrate, on the basis of the report filed by the police, accepted the B Report. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Magistrate who had taken cognizance and issued process. Against the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process, petitioner moved the Sessions Judge in Rev. 202/2008 before the II Addl, Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. THE order of issuance of summons by, the learned Magistrate is dated 19-4-2008. By order dated 5-7-2008, Sessions Judge stayed the impugned order of the learned Magistrate by eight weeks According to the petitioner, it was effective till September, 2008. THE stay order was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate in CC 80/2008 on 9-7-2008 wherein the stage before the. learned Magistrate was awaiting service of summons to the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is, despite the stay order of the Sessions Judge in revision .which was operative for eight weeks, by that time noting the absence of the petitioner, trial Court issued non-bailable warrant. However, later the trial Court once again on appraising of the fact by the petitioner's counsel struck of the said order from the order sheet and thereafter, matter was adjoined and the revision filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 5-9-2008 by confirming the order of the Magistrate ordering to issue summons. Apart from that, petitioner also raised a grounds regarding the matter being, moved by the 2nd respondent before the Company Law Board to transfer the shares in his name making allegation against the, petitioner and others and also in this regard according to the petitioner, he has also filed a suit for injunction against the 2nd respondent to injunct him from such a transfer. Accordingly, petitioners contend, once the B Report has been accepted and when the matter has been taken up by the Company Law Board and when the petitioner moved the civil Court seeking injunction, learned Magistrate ought not have entertained the private complaint and issued summons and it amounts to reviewing the order of acceptance of the B Report which, according to them, is contrary to the ratio laid down in various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court and accordingly, has sought for quashing the issuance of summons. (3) Similarly in Crl. P. 4238/2008, on the basis of the complaint filed, after investigation, police filed a B Report. Later, learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the protest application filed by the 2nd respondent, recorded the sworn statement and registered the case and ordered for issuance of summons. Hence, these two petitions on various grounds. (4) As per the complaisant, he being a foreign national, has started a company at Mangalore investing huge amount and by making the petitioner as one of the Directors to commence the company in India, entire finance is borne by the complainant. It appears, petitioner herein is said to have forged certain documents stating that this complainant has resigned from the directorship as such, taking over of all the shares. AS per earlier understanding, complainant had retained 76% shares and only 24% shares were given to the petitioner. Now, it is complained, by creating forged documents, apart from creating document as if complainant has tendered resignation to the directorship of the company, petitioner has got transferred 75% shares in his name and crores of rupees is involved. In this context and back ground, criminal proceedings has been initiated by the complainant and as also filed protest application later. In Crl. P. 4239/2008, the irregularity pointed out by the petitioners' counsel is, once the Magistrate accepts the B Report, question of accepting the protest application and taking cognizance, and issuance of process is contrary to the mandate of S. 362, Cr. P.C. and it is erroneous. Accordingly, in support of his argument, learned counsel, cited the decision in the case of H.V. Suresh and Ors. P.C. and it is erroneous. Accordingly, in support of his argument, learned counsel, cited the decision in the case of H.V. Suresh and Ors. v. State by Yeshwanthpur Police, Bangalore and Anr., 2008(1) KLJ 680 : (2008(1) AIR Kar R 505) and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh v. State of Bihar (2005) 12 SCC 361 to contend that the order of the learned Magistrate is erroneous and it is hit by S. 362,Cr. P.C. and such an order is impermissible. (5) Per contra, counsel for the respondent contended that in Cri. P. 4239/2008 there is no irregularity. As such, the learned Magistrate accepting the private complaint and proceeding to take cognizance after recording the sworn statement, is in accordance with law and there is no such illegality. (6) On facts, it is noted the police have filed B Report and also, notice on B Report is said to have been served on the complainant. But, whether it is served or not is not clear. However, on filing of such B Report as is evident from the order sheet of the lower Court., it is noticed as regards acceptance to the B Report, the notice that is ordered is not shown to have been served oh the complainant. Thereafter, after few months, immediately after ascertaining, the respondent's complaint has filed an advance! application and filed a private complaint by way of protest application based on which, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after recording the sworn statement which according to the petitioner's counsel herein, is contrary to S. 362, Cr. P. C. I have gone through the judgment cited by the petitioner's counsel in this regard. The ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court is not applicable to the case on hand. So also the judgment in the case of Surendra Singh cited supra referring to S. 362, Cr. P. C. is not applicable to the case on hand wherein it is stated that whenever there is a recalling of the order passed earlier only is impermissible and amounts to review of the order. So also the judgment in the case of Surendra Singh cited supra referring to S. 362, Cr. P. C. is not applicable to the case on hand wherein it is stated that whenever there is a recalling of the order passed earlier only is impermissible and amounts to review of the order. But, in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra and Anr., AIR 2002 SC 483 , a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in similar circumstances, in para 4 of the judgment has held that where the Magistrate accepts the final form submitted by the polices the right of the complainant to file a protest application is not taken away and in fact, on such complaint being filed, the Magistrate follows the procedure under S. 201 of the Code and takes cognizance if the material produced by the complainant makes out an offence. (7) In the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 : (AIR 2004 SC 4674) relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, the Apex Court referring to the decision in K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala (1992) 1 SCC 217 : ( AIR 1992 SC 2206 ) and distinguishing the said case held that a condition precedent for issuing process under S. 204 is the satisfaction of the Magistrate, either by examination of the complainant and the witnesses or by the inquiry contemplated under S. 202 that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. IN none of these stages the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has providing for hearing the summoned accused, because this is only a preliminary stage and the stage of hearing of the accused would only arise at a subsequent stage provided for in the latter provisions in the Code. The only stage of dismissal of the complaint arises under S. 203, Cr. P. C. at which stage the accused has no role to play, therefore, the question of the accused on receipt of summons approaching the Court and making an application for dismissal of the complaint under S. 203, Cr. P.C. for a reconsideration of the material available on record is impermissible because by then S. 203 is already over and the Magistrate has proceeded further to S. 204 stage. P.C. for a reconsideration of the material available on record is impermissible because by then S. 203 is already over and the Magistrate has proceeded further to S. 204 stage. (8) Further, in the said case, the Apex Court has observed that the accused has filed application after issuance of summons by the Magistrate purported to be under S. 203, Cr. P.C. After hearing, learned Magistrate has recalled the order of summons issued and the same has been challenged in revision before the High Court. However, High Court allowed the revision. The Apex Court held that if the Magistrate takes cognizance of offence arid issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or material produced implicating the accused in contravention of Ss. 200 to 202, Cr. P. C. the order of Magistrate is vitiated and, opined further that the relief available to the aggrieved, is not by invoking S. 203, Cr. P. C. because the Court does not contemplate review of order. It is also observed that in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal Courts, remedy lies in invoking S. 482, Cr. P. C. and while distinguishing Mathew's case, it is held, no specific provision is required to recall an erroneous order. In the instant case, after going through the grounds raised in the complaint filed by the respondent before the Company Law/Board, I am of the opinion the same does not come in the way of criminal Court to deal with the complaint nor does it fall within the exclusive domain of the Company Law Board since the grievance prima facie appears to be that petitioner has taken undue advantage of the situation, as per the submission made by the respondent's counsel. Further, what is noticed is, even the petitioner filed an injunction suit seeking for not transferring the shares as it is his own creation and as such, it cannot be said that it is purely a civil dispute. (9) So far as the procedure followed by the Magistrate in the case on hand, as is contemplated in Adalat Prasad's case (AIR 2004 SC 4674) relied upon by the petitioners themselves, what is noticed is, the complaint is filed by the respondent before the police and after investigation police file a B Report. Though notice has been issued or not, but, after some time B Report has been accepted. Though notice has been issued or not, but, after some time B Report has been accepted. However, on coming to know of the same, the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint as per S. 200, Cr. P. C. and also his sworn statement has been recorded and learned Magistrate having found prima facie material, has issued process against the petitioners. This very procedure is very much contemplated in the decision relied upon by the petitioner themselves. What is prohibited is only recalling the order. Mere acceptance of B Report does not by itself put an end to the issue when the complainant has exercised discretion by filing complaint by way of protest. Though prior to that learned Magistrate has accepted the B Report and once again after placing fresh material before the Magistrate by way of filing complaint and by leading evidence, the Magistrate passed an order of issuance of summons, it does not amount to reviewing the earlier order passed. Rather. as required under Ss. 200 and 204, Cr. P. C. procedure has been followed and after being satisfied that there is material available, he has proceeded against the petitioners and I do not find any such irregularity or illegality committed by the Magistrate. Question of reviewing the order does not arise. Magistrate rather on the availability of fresh material placed before the Court, has proceeded to issue summons for which there is no bar. Further, in the case of Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuvaneswar Prasad Sinha (1982) 3 SCC 510 , the Apex Court has observed that acceptance of the final form does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance on the material produced in the complaint proceedings. (10) Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. Learned Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear-before the learned Magistrate on 23rd November, 2009 and thereafter, to expedite the matter and dispose of the same within four months. Petitions Dismissed.