Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. The accused-applicants, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no.1913 of 2010 State vs. Dhoop Narayan and others pending in the court of CJM, Ambedkar Nagar and the order dated 18.5.2010 passed therein summoning the applicants for facing trial in the aforesaid case. In short, one Parasnath (O.P. NO.3) moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the CJM, Ambedkar Nagar stating therein that his wife Smt. Phoolwati is a mentally disturbed lady and the accused Dhoop Narayan and others taking advantage of her illness dishonestly induced her to execute Bainama of her land in their favour without any consideration. Thus the accused persons committed forgery and cheating with the complainant and his wife. Pursuant to the order passed on the said application by CJM, a case at crime no.109 of 2006 u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC was registered against the accused-applicants at P.S. Jaitpur district Ambedkar Nagar. The matter was investigated. On completion of investigation, the police forwarded final report to the effect that during investigation no case was made out against the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved, complainant Parasnath filed objections in the form of a protest petition against the final report. It transpires from the record that along with the protest petition, complainant Parasnath filed his own affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses. The learned Magistrate on the basis of protest petition and affidavits filed in support thereof came to the conclusion that the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were supported by the affidavits filed alongwith the protest petition, therefore, there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons and accordingly taking cognizance u/s 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. by order dated 18.5.2010 summoned the accused/applicants to stand their trial under the aforesaid sections. It is in this back-drop of the facts that the applicants are before this court seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 18.5.2010 and the entire proceedings of criminal case as aforesaid. It is in this back-drop of the facts that the applicants are before this court seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 18.5.2010 and the entire proceedings of criminal case as aforesaid. The main contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the learned Magistrate, without holding any enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as required upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint, has taken cognizance in the case as if on police report on the basis of protest petition and the affidavits filed in support thereof, which were not the part of the Final Report and by his order dated 18.5.2010 has issued process against the applicants for trial which is against all legal norms and settled principles of law and procedure, therefore, is invalid and is liable to be quashed. The learned A.G.A. has endeavored to support the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Having considered the submissions of both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the accused-applicants that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance in the matter, is contrary to procedure settled by law. Before coming to the point, it may be stated that Chapter XIV of Criminal Procedure Code deals with the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings and taking cognizance of offence by a Magistrate. Section 190 (1) Cr.P.C. lays down as under:- "190- Cognizance of offences by Magistrate- 1. Subject to the provisions of this chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-Section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed." Section 190 (2) is not relevant for the purpose, therefore, is not quoted. On perusal of provision of Section 190 (1) Cr.P.C. it is clear that it provides for taking cognizance by a Magistrate either on a complaint or on police report and also on information received otherwise or on his own knowledge. On perusal of provision of Section 190 (1) Cr.P.C. it is clear that it provides for taking cognizance by a Magistrate either on a complaint or on police report and also on information received otherwise or on his own knowledge. For the purpose of this case we are concerned with Section 190 (1) (a) and 190 (b) only. A police report, as mentioned in Section 190 (1) (b) may be positive in form stating that a case in favour of prosecution is made out against the accused persons; it may also be negative in the way that no case is made out against the accused. This negative report by police, in common parlance, is known as FR (Final Report). As laid down by the Apex Court in cases of H.S. Bains Vs. State- 1981 (18) ACC 146 (SC) and Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra, 1967 (4) ACC 307(SC), it is settled that on receipt of FR the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion arrived at by investigating officer that no offence is made out. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and if he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by police, there is sufficient ground to proceed, he may straightaway take cognizance of the case in exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. itself and direct the issue of process to the accused.. However, it is to be borne in mind that on receiving final report cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. can be taken only on the basis of papers forwarded by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., but when the Magistrate makes up his mind to take into consideration other material or evidence, it would be a case of taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) and for that matter procedure prescribed for compliant case is to be followed. From the perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the learned Magistrate did not hold any enquiry u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. while he has taken into consideration the extraneous material which was not part of the Final report and was filed by the complainant by way of protest petition and affidavits in support thereof. From the perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the learned Magistrate did not hold any enquiry u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. while he has taken into consideration the extraneous material which was not part of the Final report and was filed by the complainant by way of protest petition and affidavits in support thereof. In such a situation the Magistrate was under obligation to treat the protest petition as a complaint and hold an enquiry as envisaged u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. with a view to ascertain and find out whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further in the matter and issue process u/s 204 Cr.P.C. or drop the proceedings u/s 203 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, I find that the learned Magistrate has not adopted the correct procedure. In the facts and circumstances, the order impugned taking cognizance and summoning accused applicants suffers from error of procedure which renders the same invalid and unsustainable. Accordingly the impugned summoning order dated 18.05.2010 is quashed, however, it shall open to the Magistrate to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and observation made herein above. With these observation, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. _____________