Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.07.2014 whereby the cancellation report submitted by the Investigating Agency has not been accepted by the trial Magistrate. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.01.2014 the informant lodged a report at Police Station, Jubbal, alleging therein that she is working as teacher in K.D.Public School, Jubbal since 7 years. She got married approximately 10 years back and out of their wedlock, one son aged about nine years was born. It was further alleged in the FIR that the informant and the petitioner were knowing each other from last 5 years. On 6th December, 2013, the informant took lift in the car bearing No. HP-10-6900 owned by the petitioner from Sawra to Jubbal and the petitioner took the car to an isolated place where he sexually harassed her forcibly without her consent by threatening her to do away with her life. It was further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had threatened the complainant not to disclose the said incident to anybody, failing which he would do away with her and her child’s life. On the basis of these allegations, an FIR No. 1 of 2014 dated 4.1.2014 under Section 354-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Jubbal. 3. During the course of investigation, the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein, for the first time, she reported that on 06.12.2013, the petitioner had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which, Section 376 IPC was incorporated. During the progress of investigation, the informant was subjected to medical examination, however being a married lady, the doctor clinically observed her to be habitual of sexual intercourse and found no injury on her person. 4. On 17.01.2014, the statement of the informant was got recorded by the Investigating Agency before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the informant denied the allegations so made by her in the FIR as well as in her alleged statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact, she had categorically denied having been subjected to any sexual harassment much less forcible sexual intercourse by the petitioner. 5. 5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer presented a cancellation report before the learned trial Magistrate, who in turn, did not accept the cancellation report and held that there was sufficient material/ground to proceed against the accused and accordingly took cognizance for the offences under Section 376, 354-A and 506 IPC and issued process against the petitioner. 6. I have heard Shri N.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General with Ms.Parul Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State and Ms.Soma Thakur, learned counsel for the complainant. 7. The complainant who is present in person along with Ms. Soma Thakur, Advocate, has stated that she has no objection in case the proceedings are quashed as she is no longer interested to pursue the case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that while exercising powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Magistrate could have only taken cognizance after applying his judicial mind to the facts emerging from the investigation that too by spelling out the prima facie material on the basis of which he was taking cognizance especially when the Investigating Agency had submitted a cancellation report. Not only this, the statement of the informant recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could not have been ignored and brushed aside and cognizance could not have been taken simply on the basis of the MLC of the informant and the FSL report wherein the only opinion given was that traces of blood had been detected in Ex.1-a and Ex.1-b. 9. No doubt, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for rejecting the cancellation report. However, it is only appropriate that if the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence in the teeth of such cancellation report, at least the Magistrate would record reasons for taking cognizance of the offence in exercise of the powers under Section 190(1) (b) of the Code. The requirement of recording reasons was all the more imperative in this case since the informant herself had got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C disowning all the previous statements. 10. The statement recorded by the Magistrate is a public document and it does not require any formal proof. The requirement of recording reasons was all the more imperative in this case since the informant herself had got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C disowning all the previous statements. 10. The statement recorded by the Magistrate is a public document and it does not require any formal proof. The Guahatti High Court while stressing upon the value of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has gone to the extent of holding that where the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had not stated that the accused raped her, her statement in Court that she was raped by the accused would not be believed, the accused would be acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC (Alloudin versus State of Assam 2004 (1) Crimes 149; Shri Mukunda Madhav Sakia versus State of Assam 2008 Criminal Law Journal (NOC) 645). 11. The only reason accorded by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance is as follows:- “It is pertinent to note that the meaning of work ‘cognizance’, as used u/s. 190 Cr.P.C., which is undoubtedly a judicial exercise, is well settled, as it means when the Court for the first time applies its judicial mind qua commission of some offences, and thus it has to peruse the entire report including MLC, FSL Report (vide which blood was detected in traces on Ext.1a and Ext. 1b) and is not bound either by misplaced sympathy of informant due to subsequent compromise or due to some other extraneous reason or may be due to some pressure or threat or even by misplaced legal notion of I.O., in a sensitive matter pertaining to women related offences.” Incase the MLC and FSL report are seen, no doubt, traces of blood were found on Ex.1-a and Ex.1-b, but was the Magistrate dealing with a case of murder or rape? 12. The samples had been sent to the FSL for obtaining report regarding presence of semen (if any) and blood and it was specifically found by the FSL that no traces of semen had been found in Ex.1-a and Ex.1-b. Therefore, once no semen is found, then the Ex.1-a and Ex.1-b were totally worthless for establishing a case against the petitioner. 13. 13. Summoning an accused is a serious matter and order must reflect application of mind to the nature of allegations and the material on record and in case this is not so, then the High Court should exercise the powers to quash the proceedings in case where the proceedings before the Court are being degenerated into a weapon of harassment or persecution. I have no hesitation to conclude that the proceedings are inherently absurd and improbable and no prudent person can reach such a conclusion. No doubt, the law is well settled that the Magistrate can ignore cancellation report or the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer, but then he is required to independently apply his mind to take cognizance in exercise of powers under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and only then direct the issuance of process against the accused which in the present case the learned Magistrate has failed to do. 14. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that an order issuing process cannot be vitiated merely because of absence of reasons and irregularity committed in exercise of power under Section 204 are not included under Section 461 Cr.P.C. Section 465 (1) Cr.P.C. protects orders from errors, omissions or irregularities, unless “a failure of justice” has been occasioned thereby. But, in this case, once the Investigating Agency had filed a cancellation report and even the informant had got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was not only desirable but imperative that the reasons ought to have been recorded on the basis of which the learned Magistrate was taking cognizance and had decided to issue the process. 15. This is a fit case where this Court ought to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly the present petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jubbal, District Shimla, in case No.46/4 of 2014, titled State versus FIR No.1 of 2014 are quashed. 16. The pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.