JUDGMENT : The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.03.2016 by which cognizance of the offence under sections 465, 466, 467, 477 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been taken. By the same order, Chandra Bhushan Ojha and Smt. Kiran Devi @ Singh were directed to appear before the Court on 09.05.2016 - summons are issued to the accused. 2. On the basis of a written report vide letter dated 19.09.2005 of District Additional Registrar, Deoghar a First Information Report was lodged against Chandra Bhushan Ojha and Smt. Kiran Devi @ Singh vide Deoghar Town P.S Case No. 292 of 2005. By an order dated 12.12.2013 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar took cognizance of the offence and ordered summons against them. Aggrieved by that order, Smt. Kiran Devi @ Singh approached Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2014. The order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2013 was set-aside by Sessions Court vide order dated 08.08.2014. The main reason why Sessions Court interfered with the order dated 12.12.2013 appears to be a misconception that the Magistrate can take cognizance only upon a protest petition duly registered. 3. In the order dated 08.08.2014 the learned Sessions Judge has observed as under: "The Final Form dated 31.08.2013 was submitted in the lower Court on 30.09.2013 whereafter the notice was issued to the informant on 31.10.2013. This petitioner filed a petition with a request to accept the Final Form which was rejected. On 29.11.2013 the informant appeared and a protest petition was filed. After hearing the case, the record was fixed for order on the point of cognizance and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. It further appears that on the same day i.e. 12.12.2013 the learned C.J.M accepted the Final Form by making endorsement to this effect in the front page of Final Form itself. In the impugned order also the learned C.J.M, although have observed that prima facie case is made out against the accused person, accepted the Final Form and thereafter proceeded to take cognizance. It is settled law that once the Magistrate accepts the Final Form then the protest petition has to be registered as a complaint case and proceeded accordingly. In the impugned order also the learned C.J.M, although have observed that prima facie case is made out against the accused person, accepted the Final Form and thereafter proceeded to take cognizance. It is settled law that once the Magistrate accepts the Final Form then the protest petition has to be registered as a complaint case and proceeded accordingly. Before acceptance the Magistrate is at liberty to differ with the opinion of the 1.0 and can take cognizance of the offence ignoring the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently applying her mind to the facts emerging from the investigation. It is within the discretion of the learned CJM to peruse the case diary and form her independent opinion and take cognizance of the offence, if she thinks fit, in exercise of powers u/s 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C and direct the issue of process to the accused person. In such circumstance, a Magistrate is not bound to follow procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The allegation of the petitioner is that this false case has been instituted at the behest of Sujit Jha. I consider that such allegation of malafide is a question of fact which can be decided during trial only and cannot be considered in this revision. I am also not convinced with the objection with regard to limitation as some of the Sections mentioned in the FIR and in the impugned order are punishable with more than 3 years. The impugned order is not clear as to how the learned C.J.M, has proceeded to take cognizance. It cannot be said that by mistake the learned C.J.M has endorsed regarding acceptance of Final Form as because such endorsement in the impugned order is written personally by a Presiding Officer after due application of mind and similar endorsement is also made in the copy of Final Form itself on 12.12.2013. If that was the case then the matter comes to an end. If on the basis of protest petition the learned Court forms an independent opinion of taking cognizance then the same has to be registered as a complaint case. In such view of matter, the impugned order dated 12.12.2013 is not tenable and is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Court below for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the revision stands allowed." 4. Mrs. In such view of matter, the impugned order dated 12.12.2013 is not tenable and is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Court below for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the revision stands allowed." 4. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a plea that the direction issued by Sessions Court was not followed by the learned Magistrate and in a mechanical manner he has taken cognizance of the offence and ordered summons against the petitioner. 5. On completion of the investigation when a report is filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has three options viz. (i) to accept the report, (ii) to reject the report and take cognizance, or (iii) order further investigation under sub-section 8 of section 173. In ((Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra" AIR 1968 SC 117 the Hon'ble Supreme Court Criminal Revision No. 670 of 2016 has held as under : "14. In these two appeals, which are from the State of Bihar, the reports, under Section 169, are referred to as 'final report'. Now, the question as to what exactly is to be done by a Magistrate, on receiving a report, under Section 173, will have to be considered. That report may be in respect of a case, coming under Section 170, or one coming under Section 169. We have already referred to Section 190, which is the first section in the group of sections headed 'Conditions requisite for Initiation of Proceedings.' Sub-section (1), of this section, will cover a report sent, under Section 173. The use of the words 'may take cognizance of any offence', in sub-section (1) of Section 190, in our opinion, imports the exercise of a Judicial discretion', and the Magistrate, who receives the report, under section 173, will have to consider the said report and judicially take a decision, whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. From this it follows, that it is not as if, that the Magistrate is bound to accept the opinion of the police that there is a case for placing the accused, on trial. From this it follows, that it is not as if, that the Magistrate is bound to accept the opinion of the police that there is a case for placing the accused, on trial. It is open to the Magistrate to take the view that the facts disclosed in the report do not make out an offence for taking cognizance or he may take the view that there is no sufficient evidence to justify an accused being put on trial. On either of these grounds, the Magistrate will be perfectly justified in declining to take cognizance of an offence, irrespective of the opinion of the police. On the other hand, if the Magistrate agrees with the report, which is a charge-sheet submitted by the police no difficulty whatsoever is caused, because he will have full jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code. This will be the position, when the report, under Section 173, is a chargesheet. 15. Then the question is, what is the position, when the Magistrate is dealing with a report submitted by the police, under Section 173, that no case is made out for sending up an accused for trial, which report, as we have already indicated, is called, in the area in question, as a 'final report'? Even in those cases, if the Magistrate agrees with the said report, he may accept the final report and close the proceedings. But there may be instances when the Magistrate may take the view, on a consideration of the final report, that the opinion formed by the police is not based on a full and complete investigation, in which case, in our opinion, the Magistrate will have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police, under Section 156(3), to make a further investigation. That is, if the Magistrate feels, after considering the final report, that the investigation is unsatisfactory, or incomplete, or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the police to make further investigation, under Section 156(3). The police, after such further investigation, may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. The police, after such further investigation, may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If, ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts, set out in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1)(b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report. " 6. In the first place, the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge was not sustainable for the reason that the learned Sessions Judge has assumed that only upon registration of the protest petition filed by the informant the Court can proceed to take cognizance of the offence. Since this order was not challenged and the issue is not before me, I would refrain from commenting further on legality of the order dated 08.08.2014. In the order dated 21.03.2016, the learned Magistrate has observed that there is direct allegation against the accused persons that they forged two sale deeds. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has further noted that in various paragraphs of the case diary in which statements of witnesses are recorded there are ample materials available for taking cognizance of the offence and, accordingly, he has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 465, 466, 467, 477 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. No doubt, after the investigation a final Form/final Report was submitted by the police and the accused have filed a title suit, but as observed in "Abhinandan Jha" there was no legal impediment for taking cognizance of the offence. In the order dated 21.03.2016, after the remand, the learned Magistrate has indicated sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the final Form/final Report. A remark made on the original copy of final Form/final Report - "accepted" cannot be construed a part of the judicial order and, moreover, it is not an unknown practice that Magistrates would write "seen" or ('accepted" when final Form/final Report is filed in the Court. 7. Having noticed the orders dated 08.08.2014 and 21.03.2016 and after perusing the materials on record, I find no merits in this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed. 8. Except raising a plea based on the order dated 08.08.2014, no other plea has been raised before me. 9. The interim order dated 29.08.2016 is vacated. 10. 7. Having noticed the orders dated 08.08.2014 and 21.03.2016 and after perusing the materials on record, I find no merits in this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed. 8. Except raising a plea based on the order dated 08.08.2014, no other plea has been raised before me. 9. The interim order dated 29.08.2016 is vacated. 10. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned through FAX.