ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. In this application the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in G.R. No. 255 of 2008, whereby differing with the police report, cognizance for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 307, 385 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and the accused persons have been summoned. 2. The brief, point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Bigan Mian @ Siraj Mian Vs. State of Jharkhand as reported in 2014 (2) JLJR 95 , and Nupur Talwar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, as reported in (2012) 11 SCC 188, the Magistrate has to assign reasons while differing with the police report. In this case, since no such reasons have been assigned, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. An F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 302, 201, 307, 385 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code by the informant. After investigation, the police filed a final form bearing Final Form No. 66 of 2010 with a finding that an offence under section 304(A) only of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The learned Magistrate differed with the said police report and took cognizance of offence under Sections 302, 201, 307, 385 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process. 4. It is well within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to differ from the police report. He can take cognizance of offence independent of the conclusion arrived at by the police after investigation. 5. This Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bigan Mian @ Siraj Mian Vs. State of Jharkhand, as reported in 2014 (2) JLJR 95 relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Nupur Talwar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, as reported in (2012) 11 SCC 188, has held that while differing with the finding arrived at by the police in the final report, the Magistrate has to assign reasons. This Hon'ble Court in a detailed order passed, in the case of Ramesh Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand (Cr. This Hon'ble Court in a detailed order passed, in the case of Ramesh Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand (Cr. M.P. No. 1782 of 2016) has held that the Magistrate has power to differ with the finding arrived at by the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet, but while doing so he has to assign reason as to why he is differing. 6. From perusal of the impugned order it is clear that no reason has been assigned as to why the Magistrate is differing with the police report and have taken cognizance for offence under Sections 302, 201, 307, 385 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Since in the instant case the Magistrate has differed with the police report and has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 302, 201, 307, 385 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, he should have at least assigned some reasons as to why he is differing. Thus, relying on the judgments sighted above, the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 is set aside. 7. This matter is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in view of the observations made above. 8. This application stands allowed with the aforementioned observations.