JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. : Whether the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for brevity) is to follow order of cognizance in a complaint case or the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code should be taken up before the order of taking cogni¬zance is the question that arises for determination. 2. The facts leading to filing of this revision is that the opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur vide ICC No.302 of 2006. Such complaint was forwarded to the O.I.C., Balichandrapur Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code to investigate and report. Since no investigation was conducted, the learned S.D.J.M., directed for appearance of the O.I.C. on 01.11.2006. 3. The complainant alleges that being aggrieved by the direction of the Court, the O.I.C. reached house of the opposite party no.2 on 01.11.2006 at about 11 a.m. and knocked her door. When the lady persons in the house opened the door, at the in¬stance of the O.I.C. and A.S.I. of Police Station, the petition¬ers entered inside the house and took away the valuable articles. It is further alleged that when the lady members protested, the police officer abused and threatened the inmates in obscene language. It is also alleged that petitioner nos. 6 and 7 out¬raged the modesty of the sister of opposite party no.2. Petition¬er Nos. 4 and 9 assaulted the mother of the opposite party no.2 by giving fist blows. On such incident, the opposite party no.2 initiated another complaint case bearing case no.398 of 2006. In that complaint petition, the learned Magistrate recorded initial statement on 02.11.2006 and then proceeded with the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. On 17.11.2006 and 21.11.2006, he record¬ed the statements of witnesses produced by the complainant. As per order dated 14.04.2006, learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur took cogni¬zance of the offence under Sections 380, 354, 323, 506, 294, 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to, as the ‘IPC’ for brevity) and ordered for issue of process against the petitioners and pro forma opposite parties. 4. In course of hearing of the revision application, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is settled principle of law that cognizance should precede an enquiry con¬templated under Section 202 of the Code. 4. In course of hearing of the revision application, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is settled principle of law that cognizance should precede an enquiry con¬templated under Section 202 of the Code. Hence, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance after concluding the enquiry under Section 202. Matter has been referred to a larger Bench of this Court for adjudication in Shyam Sundar Sahoo vs. Bhibu Prasad Sahoo, 2003(25) OCR 262. On that ground alone, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cognizance should be quashed or at the worst, the matter may be referred to the larger Bench for adjudication. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supported the findings of the learned Court taking cognizance. 5. Section 460 of the Code provides for irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings. It is apposite to quote the said Section. “460: Irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings - If any Magistrate not empowered by law to do any of the following things, namely: a. to issue a search-warrant under Section 94; b. to order,under Section 155, the police to investigate an offence; c. to hold an inquest under Section 176; d. to issue process under Section 187, for the apprehension of a person within his local jurisdiction who has committed an offence outside the limits of such jurisdiction; e. to take cognizance of an offence under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190; f. to make over a case under Sub-section (2) of Section 192; g. to tender a pardon under Section 306; h. to recall a case and try it himself under Section 410; or i. to sell property under Section 458 or Section 459, erroneously in good faith does that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empow¬ered.” At clause(e) it is provided that a Magistrate not empowered by law to take cognizance, it takes cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 190, erroneously in good faith does that thing, then the proceeding shall not be set aside merely on the ground of not being so empowered. When the law provides that even when the Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance but in good faith he takes cognizance erroneously, then also the proceeding shall not be vitiated, a natural corollary is that if the Magistrate bona fide in good faith erroneously adopts a wrong procedure to take cogni¬zance, then unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, cognizance cannot be said to be illegal and merely on that ground it should not be set aside. 6. In such view of the matter, even if it is assumed for sake of consideration that the learned Magistrate adopted a wrong procedure, as no prejudice has caused to the petitioners, the order of cognizance should not be set aside on that ground alone. 7. Since the Hon’ble Judge in Shyam Sundar Sahoo vs. Bhibu Prasad Sahoo (supra) has already referred this matter to a larger Bench, this Bench is also inclined to refer this matter for adjudication to a larger Bench. However, in addition to the point of reference as has been made in the aforestated reported deci¬sion, the question whether such irregularity vitiates the cogni¬zance may perhaps be considered for adjudication. Accordingly, it is directed that the matter may be referred to the larger Bench along with Criminal Misc. Case No. 155 of 2002 with the permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Petition disposed of.