ORDER 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of an order dated 04.06.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari (East Champaran) in Govindganj (Malahi) P.S.Case No.137 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 341,323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other accused persons. In the present petition, a peculiar plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the order dated 04.06.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Govindganj( Malahi) P.S. Case No.137 of 2007, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 341,323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code differing with the police report. The police submitted report for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the petitioner and other F.I.R. named accused persons were exonerated by the police. A point has been raised that since the police after investigation had submitted a report showing commission of non-cognizable offence, the learned Magistrate was not authorized to take cognizance of offences on such report since in case of non-cognizable offence , the learned Magistrate was required to adopt the procedure, which is prescribed for complaint proceeding. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of a written complaint submitted before the Officer Incharge of Govindganj ( Malahi) Police Station by one Vijay Thakur, an F.I.R. vide Govindganj ( Malahi) P.S. Case No.137 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 341,342, 323, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on 29.12.2007.It was alleged by the informant that he was proceeding with his tractor loaded with sugarcane and as soon as he reached near the house of the petitioner, the sugarcane loaded on the tractor dashed with Verandah of the petitioner causing damages to some tiles, whereupon all the seven F.I.R. named accused persons abused and assaulted the informant. In the said occurrence, one of the co-accused snatched Rs.5000/- from the pocket of the informant. However, after the co-villagers had arrived, the informant was rescued. After investigation, the police submitted report only for non-cognizable offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said occurrence, one of the co-accused snatched Rs.5000/- from the pocket of the informant. However, after the co-villagers had arrived, the informant was rescued. After investigation, the police submitted report only for non-cognizable offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order i.e. order dated 04.06.2008 differing with the police report took cognizance of offence under Sections 341,323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal code against all the F.I.R. named accused persons. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. It has been indicated in the petition that against the order of cognizance, other accused persons had preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari (East Champaran) vide Cr.Revision no. 326 of 2008, which was dismissed on 09.09.2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari ( East Champaran), a copy of the order dated 09.09.2008 has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the present petition. Sri Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Shakti Suman Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an objection that since the police had submitted final report for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable offence, the learned Magistrate was not authorised to proceed with the case treating the report as police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Sri Shukla, the report submitted by the police was a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Sri Shukla, in such event the learned Magistrate was required to adopt the procedure prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on police report. Accordingly, it was prayed to quash the order of cognizance on this ground alone. No further plea has been taken for assailing the order of cognizance. Sri Prasoon Sinha, learned Govt. Advocate no.2, who was assisted by Smt. Anuradha Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has appeared in this case on the request made by the Court for rendering proper assistance. Sri Sinha, learned Govt. No further plea has been taken for assailing the order of cognizance. Sri Prasoon Sinha, learned Govt. Advocate no.2, who was assisted by Smt. Anuradha Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has appeared in this case on the request made by the Court for rendering proper assistance. Sri Sinha, learned Govt. Advocate no.2 at the very outset has argued on the point as to whether it was a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or it was a complaint, the learned Magistrate was having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Sri Sinha, since the learned Magistrate was well competent to take cognizance of the offence even differing with the police report, the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a complaint within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has got no force. Sri Sinha, learned Govt. Advocate no.2 has relied on an Apex Court Judgment reported in (2001) 2 SCC 245 ; State of Bihar Vs.Ganesh Choudhary & Ors. He submits that similar plea was taken in the said case before the High Court against the order of cognizance, which was allowed by this Court and the State of Bihar had assailed the order of the High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the proceedings before the Magistrate could not be vitiated merely because the proceedings were initiated by the police officer after investigation when he had no power to investigate and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Bihar. Accordingly, it was submitted by Sri Sinha, that in any event, order of cognizance cannot be termed as illegal or without jurisdiction and, as such, the petition is liable to be rejected. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that in the present case, on an allegation of commission of cognizable offences an F.I.R. vide Govindganj (Malahi) P.S. Case No.137 of 2007 was registered and, thereafter, the police started investigation as per the procedure prescribed under Chapter-XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that the Investigating Officer, after investigation, was of the opinion that only non-cognizable offence was proved and submitted report before the learned Magistrate. It is true that the Investigating Officer, after investigation, was of the opinion that only non-cognizable offence was proved and submitted report before the learned Magistrate. The said report was a report within a meaning of police report, as prescribed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that on information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, first information report can be lodged and the police without any order of the Magistrate is competent to investigate the case. Once the investigation relating to cognizable offences commences, it will be deemed that the investigation is done as prescribed under Chapter-XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminates by filing a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For just decision in the matter, it is required to quote Sections 154 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as follows: “154.Information in cognizable case—(1) Every information relating to the commission of an cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section(1) may sent the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. 173. 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating---- (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case ; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.” On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, particularly the provision contained in Section 173(2)(i)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is clear that even after investigation, if it is found that no offence was committed, a report is required to be submitted after completion of the investigation by the police and that report is considered as police report. Now, the question is as to whether a report after investigation of cognizable offences, if police submits regarding non-cognizable offence, will be treated as complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This question can well be answered only after perusal of definition of complaint as prescribed under Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is quoted herein below: “2.Definitions:- (d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation:- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint ; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;” Sri Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has tried to persuade the Court on the basis of Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which says that a report made by the police which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint. The Court is of the opinion that the submission advanced by Sri Shukla is only required to be noticed for its rejection. The definition of complaint specifically excludes a police report. Meaning thereby that once after investigation on allegation of commission of cognizable offence police submits report, whether disclosing the offences as cognizable or non-cognizable, the report shall be termed as a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as such, the police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not be treated as complaint even after noticing the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the report submitted by the police after investigation was a report within the meaning of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of offence on the said report and, as such, the plea of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate is required to adopt the procedure prescribed in a case instituted otherwise than a police report is not sustainable. Moreover, almost similar question was examined by Punjab & Haryana High Court long back in the year 1966 in a case reported in AIR 1966 P&H 465 ; Joginder Singh Bali Vs. The State. In the said case also F.I.R. was registered for cognizable offences i.e. Sections 409/411, 406/379 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, it was found that the accused had committed offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence. The order of cognizance was approved by Punjab & Haryana High Court. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment are quoted herein below: “9. The order of cognizance was approved by Punjab & Haryana High Court. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment are quoted herein below: “9. There could be no quarrel with the proposition in respect of an offence per se non-cognizable. But in the instant case the police investigation had started on information having in ambit offences under Sections 409/411, 406/379, Indian Penal Code, clearly cognizable in nature. The police investigation could not, therefore, have been held bad or suffering from any infirmity. 10. The question next that requires determination is, whether in such contingency the police agency can on a resultant offence of a non-cognizable nature make a report to the Court of competent Jurisdiction for it to take cognizance for convening the trial? 13. There is no bar to a Court of competent jurisdiction taking cognizance of any offence (non-cognizable as well as cognizable). Non-cognizable cases on a complaint could be proceeded with but if police was required to investigate and make a report prior order to that effect was incumbent as envisaged by the provisions of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In cases registered for the offence or offences of cognizable nature or mixed cognizable and non-cognizable in character and resulting in the police report for a non-cognizable offence, no such order would be required because it would be wholly unnecessary, for the police had already investigated into the matter and the report filed was the result of that investigation. Not only such an order would be superfluous but it would lead to absurdity, for it would entail going over the ground already covered.” The Court is also in agreement with the submissions of Sri Prasoon Sinha, learned Govt. Advocate no.2 that the order of cognizance, which has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while exercising power under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be assailed on the plea, which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. After going through the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that in the present case after registering the F.I.R. for cognizable offences, the police had submitted report, though, showing non-cognizable offence. After going through the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that in the present case after registering the F.I.R. for cognizable offences, the police had submitted report, though, showing non-cognizable offence. The said report was a police report, as prescribed under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as such, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed order of cognizance even differing with the police report. I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.