Raj Mani Chauhan, J.:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 11.01.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No. 2794/12/09; Shree Chandra Srivstava Vs. Brijesh Srivastava and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 193/09, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Bahraich and also for staying the proceeding of said case number. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners is that on the written report of the complainant-opposite party No.4 Shree Chandra Srivastava, the police of Police Station Kotwali, District Bahraich, registered a case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C. against the accused petitioners for investigation. The Investigating Officer during investigation of the case did not find any evidence in support of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioners, therefore, he submitted final report in favour of the accused petitioners before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich. The complainant thereafter filed objection/protest petition against the final report. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the objection/protest petition and summoned the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C. with the observation that there is, prima-facie, evidence against the accused in support of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submits that as per settled legal proposition of law, the learned Magistrate is fully empowered to take cognizance on the basis of final report or charge sheet as police report contemplated under Sections 172 (2) of the Court includes both charge sheet and final report. When the learned Magistrate takes cognizance on the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, he has to mention the specific evidence on the basis of which he finds the prima-facie, case against the accused and thereafter he may summon the accused. When the learned Magistrate takes cognizance on the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, he has to mention the specific evidence on the basis of which he finds the prima-facie, case against the accused and thereafter he may summon the accused. In this case, the observation of the learned Magistrate is that he had perused the entire records and satisfied that there is sufficient evidence against the accused in support of the commission of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C. This observation is not sufficient when the Investigating Officer found that there was no evidence against the accused in support of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate was required to go through the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and if there was sufficient evidence, he should have mentioned those evidence to show that there was prima-facie, evidence in support of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C. then he could have summoned the accused. From a perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear on what evidence, the learned Magistrate has found that there is sufficient evidence against the accused. The impugned summoning order is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned summoning order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and argued that the learned Magistrate has specifically observed that there is sufficient evidence in support of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C., consequently, he summoned the accused. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and learned A.G.A. The settled legal proposition of law is that the learned Magistrate is fully empowered to take cognizance on the basis of final report too as the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer will be police report within the meaning of Section 173 of the Code as well. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance on the final report was expected to go through the statements of the witnesses and record the specific finding about the evidence on which he was going to summon the accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance on the final report was expected to go through the statements of the witnesses and record the specific finding about the evidence on which he was going to summon the accused. In this case, from a perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that what was the evidence before the learned Magistrate on which he had got satisfied that there was sufficient evidence against the accused in support of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 382 I.P.C. If the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer was not sufficient, the learned Magistrate was empowered to treat the protest petition as complaint and thereafter he could proceed with the case as on complaint and then he was required to record the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code and the statement of the witnesses under Section 202 of the Code. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate appears to be vague and is liable to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for disposal of the objection/ protest petition filed by the complainant afresh. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 11.1.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahriach is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich with the direction that he will dispose of the objection/protest petition moved by the complainant afresh keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.