ORDER : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. Accused-petitioner has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 06.01.2012 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby learned Court below has dismissed revision petition of the petitioner against order dated 30.09.2010 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. The bare necessary facts for the purpose of this petition are that respondent-complainant lodged an FIR against the petitioner and one Kharta Ram attributing offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. As per the version of complainant there existed an agreement between accused and the complainant and pursuant thereto, complainant was asked to carry out certain works which were entrusted to the accused by Public Works Department and despite completing work, the accused did not pay the requisite amount which he has incurred in carrying out the said work. The Police proceeded with the investigation and pursuant to FIR No.416/2004, after thorough investigation, submitted negative final report before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court, thereafter, considered the negative final report and without resorting to Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., taking into account the materials which were collected during investigation, proceeded to take cognizance against the accused petitioner and Kharta Ram. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner approached the learned Court below and the learned Court below made endeavour to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order of cognizance passed by the learned trial Court. Learned Court below, after recording its satisfaction about the propriety of the order of cognizance, rejected the revision petition by the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishal Sharma, has argued that while it is true that a Magistrate is empowered to discard negative final report submitted by the Police but then for discarding negative final report, a Magistrate is expected to record cogent reasons but in the instant case, no such reasons are forthcoming from the order passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below has not made any endeavour to examine that aspect of the matter and therefore, the said order is also vitiated in law. Mr. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below has not made any endeavour to examine that aspect of the matter and therefore, the said order is also vitiated in law. Mr. Sharma has strenuously urged that there was no semblance of proof and any privity of contract between the petitioner and complainant and that has unearthed during investigation also but that aspect was completely eschewed by both the Courts below. Lastly, Mr. Sharma has urged that assuming it without admitting the same that there was some dispute between the rival parties then too it was pure and simple civil dispute which cannot be given colour of a criminal case. 4. Per contra, Mr.Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant, has submitted that at the stage of cognizance, Court is only required to decide whether sufficient ground exists or not for further proceeding in the matter. Mr.Vyas has further submitted that a negative final report submitted by the Police is not binding on the Magistrate and even on the basis of materials collected during investigation, a Magistrate can take cognizance by resorting to Section 19(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Lastly, Mr.Vyas, has urged that as both the Court below have recorded a concurrent finding against the petitioner, it is not a fit case wherein second power of judicial review is to be exercised sans abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also stoutly defended the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 7. The controversy in the instant case lies in a narrow compass. Essentially, there was some dispute between the complainant and the petitioner as well as one Kharta Ram. Being an enlisted contractor, the petitioner was awarded contract by the Public Works Department and petitioner, in turn entrusted some part of the work to Kharta Ram by entering into some agreement, thereby, Kharta Ram was appointed subcontractor by the petitioner. It appears that Kharta Ram pursuant to that contract has again entered into agreement with the complainant and as per the version of the complainant, the petitioner has also entered into agreement with him. It appears that Kharta Ram pursuant to that contract has again entered into agreement with the complainant and as per the version of the complainant, the petitioner has also entered into agreement with him. Police during investigation has recorded statements of the witnesses including the complainant and the Kharta Ram and it was unearthed during investigation that there was a written agreement between the petitioner and Kharta Ram which was anterior to the alleged agreement between the complainant and the petitioner. Moreover, it is also noticed by the Police during investigation that said agreement between petitioner and the complainant was not signed by any authorised representative of the petitioner. 8. Be that as it may, the Police during investigation was unable to collect any incriminating evidence against the petitioner for slapping aforesaid charges against him and that facilitated filing of negative final report in the matter. Learned Magistrate, while considering negative final report, has of-course recorded its indignation about the conclusion of the Investigating Officer but I am at loss to say that negative final report has not been discussed threadbare by the learned trial Court. It is also noteworthy that learned Magistrate has not made any endeavour to record statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or to make inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C and has straightway while disagreeing with the final report proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 9. Legal position is no more res-integra that powers of a Magistrate to take cognizance even if negative final report is submitted are not circumscribed but then a Magistrate is expected to record cogent and convincing reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report. That apart, it is also imperative for the Magistrate to record its satisfaction for prima facie coming to the conclusion that there existed prima facie evidence for taking cognizance. 10. Supreme Court in Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana [1993 SCC (Criminal) 376], has held with clarity and precision that the Magistrate must record reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report and if no such reasons are recorded then the order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The said view of the Supreme Court was also reiterated by this Court in Gopal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [ 2005 (10) RDD 4197 (Raj.)]. In a latter judgment of this Court, viz., Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. The said view of the Supreme Court was also reiterated by this Court in Gopal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [ 2005 (10) RDD 4197 (Raj.)]. In a latter judgment of this Court, viz., Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2006 (2) R.Cr.D. 10 (Raj.)], Court held:- "Life and personal liberty of every person is of utmost importance. Hence, life and personal liberty cannot be interfered with without a reasonable cause and without a procedure established by law. Taking of cognizance is, thus, a serious matter. For it involves disturbing the life and personal liberty of a person. Facing of a criminal trial is an ordeal, which adversely affects the reputation, the finance, the energy and the time of the alleged offender. Thus, taking of cognizance cannot be done in a mechanical manner. It should be done after a judicious application of mind to the facts and circumstances of each case. Although, a meticulous examination of evidence is not required at the stage of taking cognizance, but the Magistrate must consider the case in a holistic manner. Piecemeal consideration of the evidence does not commensurate with the judicial vision. Hence, in case a FIR or a complaint is followed by a negative Final Report, which is subsequently followed by a protest petition, while allowing the ; protest petition, a Judicial Magistrate is legally bound to discuss the negative Final Report. Such a discussion is warranted for three reasons; firstly, the Principles of Natural Justice demand and dictate that any order adversely affecting a right should be a speaking order. Although a elaborate discussion may not be required, but the order must contain sufficient reasons showing the application of a judicious mind, for disagreeing order, the Higher Judicial Authorities have a right to know the reasons, which weighed in the mind of the Judicial Magistrate for disagreeing with the negative Final Report. In the absence of such reasons, the Higher Judicial Authorities (the Sessions Court or the High Court) are left in the dark. Thirdly, it is a settled doctrine of law that "justice should not only be done, but also must appear to be done". Therefore, the accused has a right to know the reasons why the learned Judicial Magistrate has disagreed with the negative Final Report submitted by the Police after a thorough investigation. Thirdly, it is a settled doctrine of law that "justice should not only be done, but also must appear to be done". Therefore, the accused has a right to know the reasons why the learned Judicial Magistrate has disagreed with the negative Final Report submitted by the Police after a thorough investigation. In case, such reasons are not stated, alleged offender may find it difficulty to question the validity of the reasoning, hence a cryptic order is not a judicious order whereas cognizance order should always be a judicious order." 11. The judgment in Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2004 Cri.L.J. 5008 (S.C.)], on which learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the order of cognizance passed by the Magistrate refers to the statement recorded by the Police during investigation, which led to filing of the final report by the Police and so also statement recorded by the Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 12. In judgment of Sukha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2007(2) CJ (Raj.), this Court has simply reiterated the principle that trial Court is not bound to accept negative final report. There cannot be two opinions that trial Court is not bound to accept negative final report and even on the basis of materials collected during investigation, Court can take cognizance by resorting to Section 19(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, it is made clear that for taking cognizance in such an eventuality, the Court is required to record its satisfaction about the availability of requisite material for taking cognizance. Therefore, this judgment cannot render assistance to the cause of the respondent. The other judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent viz, (1) Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi & Anr. [ (2012) 2 SCC 188 ], (2) Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh & Ors. [2011 CRI.L.J. 3591] & State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai & Ors. [2009 (4) Criminal Court Cases 378 (S.C.) are also examined by me but in the backdrop of the instant case, these judgments also cannot help the cause of the respondent. 13. In totality, in my opinion, learned trial Court as well as learned Court below have committed manifest error of law and consequently, the order of cognizance passed by learned trial Court as well as revisional order cannot be sustained. 13. In totality, in my opinion, learned trial Court as well as learned Court below have committed manifest error of law and consequently, the order of cognizance passed by learned trial Court as well as revisional order cannot be sustained. Learned trial Court has completely eschewed the evidence collected by Police during investigation while arriving at the conclusion that prima facie evidence is available for taking cognizance against the petitioner, therefore, it is a clear case of abuse of the process of the Court and consequently, both the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition is allowed, the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below as well as by the learned trial Court are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned trial Court for deciding protest petition of the respondent/complainant afresh strictly in accordance with law. 15. Let record of the case be remitted back to learned trial Court forthwith.