Shri Kant Tripathi, J.:- 1. Heard Mr. Akhtar Abbas, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and also perused the materials on record. None responded for the respondent no.2 despite revision of the list. 2. Before considering the controversy involved in this case, it seems to be necessary to make a survey of the relevant facts of the case. It appears that the applicant Chela Prasad claims himself as the adopted son of Late Khushi Ram, who was his maternal uncle. It is also alleged that said Khushi Ram had also executed a registered will in favour of the applicant on 15.6.2004. The condition of Late Khushi Ram became critical on 22.1.2005 and as such he was being taken to Lucknow on 23.1.2005 for treatment but before moving for Lucknow he had gone to a bank situating within the premises of Behma Chauki for withdrawing certain money from his account. It is also alleged that Late Khushi Ram died within the premises of said Chauki on 23.1.2005. After the death of Late Khushi Ram, the respondent no.2, in order to grab his properties, forged the disputed will. It is alleged that Late Khushi Ram had not executed the disputed will, which is a product of the fraud played by the respondent no.2. 3. The investigating officer, on conclusion of the investigation, submitted a final report on the ground that a case was pending in the court of Tahsildar Sidhauli, on the basis of the disputed will. 4. The applicant filed a protest petition against the final report. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of CW-1 Chela Prasad, the petitioner, CW-2 Bhawan, CW-3 Ram Narain and CW-4 Shivraj and also obtained the will. The learned Magistrate, after considering the materials collected during the investigation, arrived at the conclusion that the criminal proceeding was not maintainable so long as the will was not declared unlawful by the competent court. The learned Magistrate further held that the question whether or not the will in favour of respondent no.2 was genuine, can only be answered by the competent court and not by a criminal court. Accordingly the learned Magistrate accepted the final report and dropped the proceedings. 5. The learned Magistrate further held that the question whether or not the will in favour of respondent no.2 was genuine, can only be answered by the competent court and not by a criminal court. Accordingly the learned Magistrate accepted the final report and dropped the proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate was not justified in accepting the final report on the ground that a case concerning the will was pending in the court of Tahsildar Sidhauli. It was also submitted that if an act constitutes a criminal charge, the civil as well as criminal proceeding may be launched and continued simultaneously. The learned Magistrate was not justified in holding that the criminal proceeding was not maintainable before the declaration of the will as invalid by the competent court. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the learned Magistrate had not considered the merits of the case and accepted the final report only on the technical ground. 6. The learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that the final report was based on the materials collected during the investigation and as such the learned Magistrate was justified in accepting the same. 7. It is well settled that a civil as well as criminal proceeding in regard to same act may be launched and continued simultaneously. If certain acts constitute an offence, the criminal proceeding can not be held up or kept in abeyance till the finalization of the civil proceeding. 8. In the case of Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam vs. State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528 , the Apex Court has held that indisputably, in a given case, a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding may proceed simultaneously. Cognizance in a criminal proceeding can be taken by the criminal court upon arriving at the satisfaction that there exists a prima facie case.................It is now well settled that ordinarily a criminal proceeding will have primacy over the civil proceeding. Precedence to a criminal proceeding is given having regard to the fact that disposal of a civil proceeding ordinarily takes a long time and in the interest of justice the former should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Precedence to a criminal proceeding is given having regard to the fact that disposal of a civil proceeding ordinarily takes a long time and in the interest of justice the former should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. If primacy is to be given to a criminal proceeding, the civil suit must be determined on its own merit, keeping in view the evidence brought on record therein and not in terms of the evidence brought in the criminal proceeding. 9. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Devendra & others vs. State of U.P. and another, (2009) 7 SCC 495 (para 13) : 2009 (3) ACR 3246 (SC). 10. In view of the aforesaid settled principles, the finding of the learned Magistrate that the criminal proceeding was premature and could not be filed before declaration of the will deed as invalid by the competent court, can not be upheld. 11. In regard to the police report, whether it is in the form of charge sheet or the final report, the power of the Magistrate is also well settled. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the police. Whenever any police report is submitted, the Magistrate may agree with the report and accept the same. He may, in a given situation, disagree with the conclusion of the police and arrived at his own conclusion. In the matter of final report too, the Magistrate may disagree with the report and take cognizance of the offence, if he, after applying his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation, is of the view that there is sufficient material to summon the accused and proceed with the case. In other words, the Magistrate is competent to reject the final report and take cognizance of the offence if a prima facie case is made out against the accused from the materials collected during the investigation. In appropriate cases, the Magistrate, after disagreeing with the report, may direct for further investigation. In other words, the Magistrate is competent to reject the final report and take cognizance of the offence if a prima facie case is made out against the accused from the materials collected during the investigation. In appropriate cases, the Magistrate, after disagreeing with the report, may direct for further investigation. These principles have been settled by the Apex Court in several cases and some of them are, Minu Kumari vs. State of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359 : 2006 (2) ACR 1714 (SC) : Popular Muthiah vs. State (2006) 7 SCC 296 : 2006 (2) ACR 2157 (SC), Abhi Nandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 and Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2004 (3) ACR 2758 (SC). 12. In the instant case the applicant had filed a protest petition against the final report and the statements of four witnesses were also recorded by the learned Magistrate. Neither the protest petition nor the statements recorded in support thereof have been given any consideration by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order. The learned Magistrate neither rejected the protest petition nor passed any order thereon. He has merely accepted the final report ignoring the protest petition and the relevant materials. The law in regard to the protest petition is also well settled. If any protest petition is filed against the final report, the Magistrate may proceed to examine the matter on the basis of materials collected during the investigation and put forth along with the protest petition and to see whether or not any case for taking cognizance of the offence is made out. If a prima facie case is made out, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. and reject the final report. Instead of doing so, the Magistrate may treat the protest petition as complaint. If any protest petition is treated as complaint, it should be dealt with in accordance with Chapter XV of CrPC. In this case, the learned Magistrate despite recording the statements of four witnesses on the protest petition, slept over the matter and accepted the final report merely on the ground of pendency of a case before the Tahsildar and the will had not been declared invalid by any competent court. This act of the learned Magistrate does not appear to be in consonance with law. 13. This act of the learned Magistrate does not appear to be in consonance with law. 13. What was required from the learned Magistrate, was to see whether the facts stated in the FIR as well as the facts brought on record on investigation and through the statements of the witnesses recorded on the protest petition, constitute an offence or not. In other words, it was the duty of the Magistrate to see whether or not the facts put forth before him had made out that the impugned will was a forged document fabricated by the respondent no.2 for grabbing the property of Late Khsuhi Ram. If it was so, what offence was made out. These aspects of the matter have not been given any consideration by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order. 14. For the reasons discussed above, the application under section 482 CrPC is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.7.2006 passed on the final report submitted in case crime no.57/2005, under sections 419, 420 and 506 IPC, police station Rampur Kalan, district Sitapur is quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made here-in-before and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.