JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 19.06.2007, whereby a direction was given for production of pre-charge evidence. 2. Learned counsel submits that an FIR was registered followed by investigation. The Police submitted negative final report after investigation. The petitioner filed protest petition against negative final report. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. followed by an order of cognisance. The case was committed and kept for framing of the charges. The case was adjourned at one stage but vide impugned order, a direction was issued for production of pre-charge evidence. It is by referring Section 244 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid provision applies only in the complaint cases and not in the case initiated on FIR. In view of above, the court below wrongly applied Section 244 Cr.P.C. 3. It is further stated that the case was fixed for framing of the charges but by the impugned order, it was reviewed having no authority of the court below as per provisions of Cr.P.C. For the aforesaid reasons also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for accused submitted that once statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. are recorded, it is converted to a complaint case, thus pre-charge evidence was mandatory, if it is a warrant trial case. The impugned order was passed accordingly to correct the mistake and not by review of the order. The impugned order may accordingly be maintained. A reference of judgment of this court in the case of Dhanna Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1038 has been given. 5. I have considered rival submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is not in dispute that a case was initiated on FIR lodged by the petitioner. After investigation, negative final report was given by the Police. The petitioner filed protest petition and thereupon statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. Once statements under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. were taken after submission of protest, the case was converted in a complaint case. If the cognisance of the offence is taken then it was mandatory for the court to take pre-charge evidence. The case was however fixed for framing of the charges. If the cognisance of the offence is taken then it was mandatory for the court to take pre-charge evidence. The case was however fixed for framing of the charges. The case was deferred for the aforesaid and finally impugned order was passed to record pre-charge evidence. In my opinion, the order has been passed to make the proceedings as per law when the pre-charge evidence was mandatory. In the instant case, the court below passed the impugned order appropriately. The order aforesaid cannot be said to be a review of the earlier order. 7. In the background aforesaid and keeping in mind judgment of this court in the case of Dhanna Ram (supra), I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******