ORDER H.N. Nagamokan Das, J.—In this petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in PCR No. 46/2006 pending on the file of I ACMM, Mysore. First respondent filed a private complaint in PCR No. 46/2006 against the petitioners alleging that they have forged a Will in the name of one A.N. Nagarathna. The jurisdictional Magistrate referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. After investigation police filed B report. The first respondent filed a protest petition objecting B report filed by the police. Under the impugned order jurisdictional Magistrate directed to register the case and issued process and the same reads as under: Perused the complaint and the sworn statement of Complainant. PWs. 1 to 3 and documents placed on record. On perusal of the materials placed, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient grounds to proceed with the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable u/s. 465, 467, 471 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC. At this stage, the Court need not give its elaborate reasons to issue process against the accused persons in view of the ruling reported in U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s. Mohan Meaking Ltd. and Others, (2000) CriLJ 1799 and Kanti Bhadra Shah and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 522 Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER Register the case against the accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence punishable 465, 467, 471 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC in Register. Issue process to accused persons returnable by 8.8.08. 2. Aggrieved by this order of jurisdictional Magistrate petitioners are before this court. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers. 3. The Supreme Court in H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883 held as under: The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the police even as he is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the complainant in a complaint. 3. The Supreme Court in H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883 held as under: The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the police even as he is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the complainant in a complaint. A magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under Section 156(3) and receives a police report under Section 173(2), may, thereafter, do one of three things: (i) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (ii) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; (iii) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter, he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be. Keeping in view the law declared by the Apex Court it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. A reading of the impugned order specifies that there is no consideration of B report and no reasons are assigned to reject the same. Further it is not stated in the impugned order as to what is the oral evidence and documentary evidence placed by the respondent complainant for registering the proceedings. Without application of mind the jurisdictional Magistrate has mechanically directed to register the case and issued process and as such the same is liable to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDER I) Petition is hereby allowed. II) The impugned order dated 30.06.2008 in PCR No. 46/2006 is hereby set-aside. III) The matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Magistrate for reconsideration in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to both the parties.