ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.66/2019 dated 25.11.2019 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge at Kolar and uphold the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate on such terms and conditions as this Court deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the same is numbered as PCR No.132/2016 making the allegation against the respondents herein that they were indulged in creation of documents by impersonation with an intention to knock off the property belongs to the complainant bearing Sy.No.29/P4 of Chinapaganahalli Village, Tekal Hobli, Malur Taluk to the extent of 1 acre 9 guntas which was granted by the Government in favour of the petitioner and his family. The Saguvali chit was issued in the name of Smt. Jayamma, the wife of the petitioner herein. The allegation made against the respondents herein is impersonation, forgery, fabrication and cheating invoking the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Learned Magistrate after having received the complaint referred the matter invoking Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer to investigate and file the report. The Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation has filed the ‘B’ report. After filing of the ‘B’ report, notice was issued to the complainant and the complainant in turn he has filed the protest petition. The learned Magistrate after filing of the protest petition, posted the matter for enquiry. Having recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and marking of documents, heard the complainant counsel and passed the order rejecting the ‘B’ report invoked Section 204 and issued the process. While issuing the process, in the operative portion of the order, referred to the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC is taken against accused Nos.1 to 4 and issued the summons to accused Nos.1 to 4, the same has been questioned in Crl.R.P.No.66/2019. While issuing the process, in the operative portion of the order, referred to the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC is taken against accused Nos.1 to 4 and issued the summons to accused Nos.1 to 4, the same has been questioned in Crl.R.P.No.66/2019. The Sessions Court after considering the material vide its order dated 25.11.2019 allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate, issuance of process and matter stands restored with a direction to follow the procedure has discussed in the order only after looking into the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C., meticulously passed an appropriate order in accordance with law. Hence, the said order of the Revisional Court is challenged before this Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that the Magistrate was well within the law in considering the protest petition and thereafter setting aside the ‘B’ report and considering the sworn statement issued the process, which is as per the procedures mentioned in the code of criminal procedure and the impugned order passed is in ignorance of the same is patently illegal and liable to be set aside. The Sessions Court was of the wrong view that the Magistrate has considered the sworn statement and thereafter set aside the ‘B’ report is patently erroneous. Considering the order sheet, which clearly depicts that after receipt of the protest petition, the Magistrate was set aside the ‘B’ report and thereafter considered the sworn statement after taking cognizance has issued the process, which is clearly as indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court under Code of Criminal Procedure. The law clearly mandates that on the report issued by the Investigating officer, the Magistrate ought to notify the complainant about the report filed and call for objections to the report (protest petition) and the Magistrate has to consider the report, accept the said report and call upon the complainant to file a fresh complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and examining the complainant under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter take the cognizance and rejected the same. If the Magistrate is not satisfied with the ‘B’ report, the Magistrate can direct further investigation or set aside and call upon the complainant to examine himself and not satisfied with the materials before taking cognizance has to set aside the report. On going through the contents of the report and also perusing the materials submitted along with the report and thereafter taking cognizance has to issue the process. The said aspect has been adhered by the learned Magistrate but the learned Sessions Judge in complete violation of the procedure set aside the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and another reported in AIR 2019 SC (Criminal) 1267, wherein, the Apex Court held that in a case of protest petition is filed, the Magistrate found considering the final report and statements under Section 161 if convinced that no prima facie case made out cannot be compelled to take cognizance by treating protest petition as complaint. However, if a protest petition fulfills the requirements of complaint, Magistrate may treat it as complaint and deal with it as required under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code. 6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and others with connected matters reported in AIR 2019 SC (Criminal) 1025, wherein, the Apex Court discussed with regard to Section 202 with regard to the absent behind in making the amendment in respect of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 7. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in AIR 2020 SC (Criminal) 66, wherein, the Apex Court discussed with regard to Section 204, issuance of process and held that the Magistrate has not required to record the reasons for issuing process in case of taking cognizance of offence upon police report. 8. 8. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mallikarjuna and others v. The State of Karnataka, through the Police Inspector, Hosapete Town Police Station and another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 354, with regard to invoking of Section 204, and also taking of cognizance and discussing the scope of Section 190 of Cr.P.C, for taking cognizance, accepting and rejecting the ‘B’ report. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and another, reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725, wherein, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, discussed with regard to rejection of ‘B’ summary report what should be the procedure to be followed. The Court has to examine the contents of ‘B’ summary report so as to ascertain whether the Police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and if the Court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been conducted properly, the Court has got some options to be followed and summed up the procedure for issuance of process and further held that the learned Magistrate even without rejecting the ‘B’ summary report and without taking cognizance of the offences, but after going through the contents of the protest petition has directly provided opportunity to the complainant to give his sworn statement. On the basis of the contents of the protest petition, and after relying upon the contents of the protest petition and the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has rejected the ‘B’ summary report which virtually amounts to putting the horse behind the cart. 10. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of W.B. and another v. Mohd. Khalid and others and other connected matters reported in (1995) 1 SCC 684 , wherein, the Apex Court discussed with regard to taking cognizance under Section 190, it is held that cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. The Court is not required to pass a reasoned order, it can take into consideration not only the police report but also other materials on record. 11. The Court is not required to pass a reasoned order, it can take into consideration not only the police report but also other materials on record. 11. The learned counsel also relied upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Sri B.S.Yediyurappa v. State of Karnataka through Gokak Town Police Station and another reported in 2020 (4) KCCR 2649 , wherein, this Court held that when the ‘B’ report was filed, the Magistrate to require to notify the same to the informant or complainant and only when the informant or complainant objects to ‘B’ report, the Magistrate can record the sworn statement of the informant. If the sworn statement were to establish the defects in the investigation, the Magistrate may set aside the ‘B’ report and proceed with the case after taking cognizance and the Magistrate cannot suo motu reject the ‘B’ report without notice to the complainant. A Magistrate can reject ‘B’ report only on sworn statement of the informant. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would vehemently contend that the learned Sessions Judge in detail discussed with the Revision Petition and categorically held that the learned Magistrate is under the confusion and while issuance of process cognizance was taken and the same is erroneous and before proceeding to record the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken the cognizance. The learned counsel would also vehemently contend that the Sessions Judge noticing the error committed by the learned Magistrate rightly set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the order. Hence, the order passed by the learned District Judge is legally sustainable. 13. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment, the same judgment is also relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel in Dr. Ravikumar’s case (supra), with regard to summing up the procedure in a case of B summary report is filed. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the paragraph No.5, wherein, several instances or guidelines are given to follow the procedure in case a ‘B’ report is filed. The order of the learned Magistrate is not in consonance with the judgment of this Court. 14. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the paragraph No.5, wherein, several instances or guidelines are given to follow the procedure in case a ‘B’ report is filed. The order of the learned Magistrate is not in consonance with the judgment of this Court. 14. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State by A.Mahadeva v. Papireddy reported in ILR 1988 KAR 666, wherein, this Court held that the order of issue of process was bad as there was nothing to indicate that the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences before he commenced recording the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses and without taking into the cognizance, issuance of process is bad in law. The order of the learned Magistrate was set aside and the matter was sent back to the Magistrate for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Hence, the said judgment is applicable to the case on hand. 15. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of H.S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) reported in AIR 1980 SC 1883 , wherein, the Apex Court in detail discussed with regard to Sections 156(3), 173(1), 190(1)(b), 200, 203 and 204. The Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3), Police Report stating that no case was made out still Magistrate can take cognizance and issue process. In this Judgment, three things are to be considered. (1) When the report was filed under Section 156(3), he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process, this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be. 16. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be. 16. The learned counsel referring to this Judgment would vehemently contend that the Revisional Court considering the principles laid down in the Judgment rightly held that the learned Magistrate committed an error in taking cognizance at the time of issuance of process and there cannot be any order for quashing the setting aside order of the learned Sessions Judge and no merit in the present petition. 17. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the learned Magistrate considering the material on record rightly issued the process and the Revisional Court has committed an error in setting aside the order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration with the serious allegations of impersonation, forgery and offences of fabrication of the documents alleged against the respondents herein. 18. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State/respondent No.5, this Court has to consider the material available on record. Before considering the material available on record, this Court would like to extract the order passed by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 06.12.2018, the order impugned held that ‘B’ report was set aside and a case was posted for sworn statement of the complainant. The complainant in his complaint has stated that property in Sy.No.29/14 measuring 1.9 acres was granted in favour of the complainant but the accused without the knowledge of the complainant got obtained document in respect of the property said to have been executed by the complainant by impersonating the complainant. 19. Having referred to the complaint averments, the sworn statement and also perusing the document i.e., copy of mutation register extract, grant certificate, RTC, copy of agreement of sale, held that, it is clear that there is prima facie grounds to take cognizance of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the operative portion of the order, it is mentioned as taken cognizance for the above offences and issued the summons against the accused. In the operative portion of the order, it is mentioned as taken cognizance for the above offences and issued the summons against the accused. No doubt, while passing the order, a reference was made that the ‘B’ report was set aside and a case was posted for the sworn statement of the complainant. Having perused the order sheet of the Magistrate Court after filing of the protest petition, no such order has been passed only proceeded to conduct an enquiry vide order dated 24.04.2017 as mentioned in the order, the ‘B’ report was not set aside. Only reference was made while passing the order of cognizance. Hence, it is clear that the ‘B’ report was not either set aside or rejected but proceeded to hold an enquiry. Hence, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance. This Court by its Judgment in the case of V.S.Joshi and another v. N.G.Bhat, Chitrigi and another reported in ILR 2006 KAR 735, held that non mentioning in the order sheet while proceeding to record sworn statement of the witnesses, that cognizance is taken-whether fatal-should proceedings be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on such technical grounds. It is held that the Magistrate need not specifically state in his order that he has taken cognizance of the offences. Taking of cognizance by the Magistrate can be inferred from the facts and other material on record. The very fact that the Court below has decided to record the sworn statements after perusing the complaint itself would mean that the Magistrate has applied his mind and has taken cognizance of the offences at the initial stage itself. It is further held that hence, it can be safely said that the Magistrate has applied his mind and thereafter, recorded the sworn statements of the witnesses. In the case on hand also, no such order has been passed either rejecting or accepting the ‘B’ report on filing of the protest petition, the learned Magistrate proceeded to hold an enquiry and that means taking cognizance. 20. The other contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 while issuing the process, the Court says cognizance was taken and the same is bad in law. The Revisional Court also while setting aside the order in paragraph No.15 held that the Magistrate had got confused with respect to taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused. 20. The other contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 while issuing the process, the Court says cognizance was taken and the same is bad in law. The Revisional Court also while setting aside the order in paragraph No.15 held that the Magistrate had got confused with respect to taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused. No doubt, it is held that both are entirely different in a case of proceeding for recording of sworn statement that does not mean that the learned Magistrate has committed an error and only the Revisional Court on the ground that the Magistrate was under confusion has taken cognizance while issuing the process has set aside the order. The very approach of the Revisional Court is also erroneous. This Court in V.S.Joshi’s case (supra), further held that the subsequent observation of the learned Magistrate at the time of passing the aforesaid order that the cognizance taken becomes redundant and shall have to be ignored. Even otherwise, it may amount to taking cognizance or applying mind to the facts of the case for the second time, at the time of passing of impugned order and the same is not barred. Hence, the same cannot be said to be illegal. Moreover, the order of issuing process cannot be set aside merely on such hypertechnical ground. Added to it, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by non mentioning in the order sheet while proceeding to record sworn statements of the witnesses, that the cognizance is taken. It is not a mandate of law that the Magistrate should mention that he has taken cognizance of the offence, before recording a sworn statement. 21. This Court also would like to refer to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Shivaraj v. The State of Karnataka and others reported in 2019 (7) Kar.L.J. 44, wherein, in detail discussed with regard to taking of cognizance and applying of judicial mind and proceeding to enquire into the matter. If there is any irregularity that can be curable. 22. If there is any irregularity that can be curable. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 relied upon the judgments of this Court in Mallikarjuna’s case (supra) and Dr.Ravikumar’s case (supra), wherein, this Court discussed with regard to filing of ‘B’ report and proceeding further and held that ‘B’ report has to be rejected and then proceed to record the sworn statement and take a decision under Sections 203 and 204. 23. It is also important to note that in the recent judgment of this Court in Sri B.S.Yediyurappa’s case (supra), wherein, this Court held that when the ‘B’ report was filed, the Magistrate to require to notify the same to the informant or complainant and only when the informant or complainant objects to ‘B’ report, the Magistrate can record the sworn statement of the informant. If the sworn statement were to establish the defects in the investigation, the Magistrate may set aside the ‘B’ report and proceed with the case after taking cognizance and the Magistrate cannot suo motu reject the ‘B’ report without notice to the complainant. A Magistrate can reject ‘B’ report only on sworn statement of the informant. The views with regard to rejection of ‘B’ report at the initial stage and after recording of the sworn statement, contradictory to each other. 24. Now, the question before the Court is whether the ‘B’ report has to be rejected and then proceed to take cognizance or to consider the ‘B’ report while issuing the process in the question also to be clarified. 25. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that the police after investigation after referring the matter under Section 156(3) have filed the final report or ‘B’ report. Thereafter, an opportunity is given to the complainant to file the protest petition. The complainant also filed the protest petition. 25. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that the police after investigation after referring the matter under Section 156(3) have filed the final report or ‘B’ report. Thereafter, an opportunity is given to the complainant to file the protest petition. The complainant also filed the protest petition. It has to be noted that when the Magistrate after applying his judicious mind invoked Section 156(3) referring the matter to the investigating officer and passed an order and the said order is pre-cognizance order, only it requires application of judicious mind to form an opinion whether the complaint averments and documents produced along with the complaint depict any cognizable and non-cognizable offences are taken place and only after applying the judicious mind, the matter has to be referred under Section 156(3), the same amounts to pre-cognizable order. Here it is not the said question before this Court. The question before the Court is after the investigation, the police have filed the ‘B’ report. After the said ‘B’ report, a protest petition has been filed. When the protest petition is filed, the Magistrate has to treat the protest petition as a complaint. The protest petition should contain the ingredients of the offences, which have been invoked against the accused and the same should not be a formal protest petition and the averments made in the protest petition itself become the complaint. The Magistrate has to look into the protest petition averments and then take a decision whether the Court has to take the cognizance or not. In the case on hand, I have already pointed out that no order has been specifically mentioned that the cognizance is taken but proceeded to hold an enquiry that means he has taken the cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of the witness. 26. I have already pointed out that while coming to the conclusion that an enquiry is required; ‘B’ report was not set aside but only while passing an order of issuance of process, it was mentioned that ‘B’ report was set aside and there is no such order. 26. I have already pointed out that while coming to the conclusion that an enquiry is required; ‘B’ report was not set aside but only while passing an order of issuance of process, it was mentioned that ‘B’ report was set aside and there is no such order. It is also important to note that the Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari’s case (supra), held that, with regard to what is the procedure to be followed to the protest petition filed that the Magistrate after considering the final report, the statement under Section 161 if convinced that no prima facie case made out -cannot be compelled to take cognizance by treating protest petition as complaint. It is further observed that however, if a protest petition fulfils requirements of complaint, Magistrate may treat it as complaint and deal with it as required u/s.200 read with Section 202 of the Code. 27. Having perused the principle laid down in the Judgment, it is clear that once the Magistrate comes to a conclusion that the protest petition for its requirements of compliance, he has to proceed in accordance with law under Section 200. In the case on hand also, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn statement by examining the witnesses as contemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 28. The Apex Court in the recent judgment in Aforz Mohammed hasanfatta’s case (supra), discussed with regard to Section 204 and scope of Section 397(2) is concerned, held that the Revisional Court not sit as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate the evidence unless the judgment of lower court suffers from perversity. Further observed that the Magistrate has not required to record reasons for issuing the process in case of taking cognizance is concerned upon police report. Further observed that, for issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuing of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegation in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. At the stage of issuing of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegation in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that the final report was filed and the same is the ‘B’ report and the learned Magistrate proceeded to take the cognizance and recorded the sworn statement and in the order after recording the sworn statement and also appreciating the documents referred supra forms an opinion that it is a fit case to proceed against the respondents herein as the cognizable offences are invoked against the respondents herein i.e., an allegation of impersonation, forgery and fabrication of documents. It is also important to note that when the Magistrate was proceeded to record the sworn statement, the right procedure is to consider the investigation report filed by the Investigating Officer whether he has committed an error in not considering the material placed before him during the course of investigation and also looked into the sworn statement of the complainant and protest petition and evaluate the material available on record, then invoke Sections 203 or 204, if material is not found to proceed against the accused then, invoke Section 203 for dismissal of the complaint. The learned Magistrate forms an opinion that there are materials to proceed against the respondents/accused to invoke Section 204 and issue the process. 29. I have already pointed out that while issuing the process by inadvertently, the learned Magistrate mentioned in the order that cognizance has taken and that does not mean that the same vitiates the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Revisional Court has committed an error in coming to such a conclusion. I have already pointed out that the same has to be redundant and also no need to mention in the order that cognizance is taken referring to the judgment of this Court in Shivaraj’s case (supra) and V.S.Joshi’s case (supra). 30. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, both relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in H.S.Bains’s case (supra). 30. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, both relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in H.S.Bains’s case (supra). In the said judgment, the Apex Court held that the learned Magistrate taking of the cognizance under Section 190, do one of three things: (1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Sections 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter, he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), since the cognizance is not taken upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b) since ‘B’ report was filed and proceeded to receive the protest petition treating the same as complaint and taken the cognizance and proceeded to hold an enquiry. After considering the material available on record comes to a conclusion that there are materials. The learned Magistrate has applied his judicious mind in accordance with law and proceeded to record the sworn statement to consider the material on record and issue the process. Except committing the mistake while issuing the process again mentioned that the cognizance is taken and also comes to a conclusion that ‘B’ report was set aside. Hence, he has adopted the proper method by taking cognizance and thereafter recorded the sworn statement and considered the material with protest petition, sworn statement and issued the process. Except committing the mistake while issuing the process again mentioned that the cognizance is taken and also comes to a conclusion that ‘B’ report was set aside. Hence, he has adopted the proper method by taking cognizance and thereafter recorded the sworn statement and considered the material with protest petition, sworn statement and issued the process. It is also important to note that no where in the code any provisions is made for filing of a protest petition but when the matter was referred under Section 156(3), when the Investigating Officer filed ‘B’ report and an opportunity is to be given to the complainant to say with regard to the ‘B’ report and to give an opportunity to file the protest petition and though it is not recognized under the code and the same is conventional practice was recognized in the judicial proceeding. 31. The Apex Court in H.S.Bains’s case (supra), held that the police submitted a report indicating that no case has been made out against the accused. The Court, however, recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses and issued a process against the accused. It was contended that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case as if upon a complaint when the police had submitted a report that no case had been made out against the accused. It is further observed that the Magistrate acted within his powers and observed that the complainant in a complaint did not get exhausted as soon as the Magistrate ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court also observed that unable to agree with the submission that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process to the accused notwithstanding the fact that the police report was to the effect that no case had been made out. It is further observed that it was wholly unnecessary for the Magistrate to write such an elaborate order as if he was weighing the evidence and finally disposing of the case. In the case on hand, taking into note of the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance referring that ‘B’ report was set aside and cognizance was taken while issuing the process. The very observation only uncalled for and the same may not vitiate the order of the learned Magistrate. In the case on hand, taking into note of the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance referring that ‘B’ report was set aside and cognizance was taken while issuing the process. The very observation only uncalled for and the same may not vitiate the order of the learned Magistrate. The principles laid down in H.S.Bains’s case (supra), are applicable to the case on hand. In the said judgment also, the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the police even as he is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the complainant in a complaint. It is also observed that the Magistrate is not bound to accept the opinion of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses. He may prefer to ignore the conclusions of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses and take cognizance of the offence. If he does so, it would be on the basis of the statements of the witnesses. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the witness issued the process. 32. In Vishnu Kumar Tiwari’s case (supra), the Apex Court held that the Magistrate can, faced with a final report, independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from investigation and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), and in this regard, is not bound to follow the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b). It is also observed that however, open to the Magistrate to do so. If the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that if a protest petition fulfils the requirement of a complaint, Magistrate may treat protest petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under Sections 200/202 of Cr.P.C. Further observed that, while the form is not entirely decisive of the question whether it amounts to a complaint or is liable to be treated as a complaint, essentially, the protest petition in this case, is a summing up of the objections of the second respondent against the final report. 33. 33. Having perused the principles laid down in the judgment, it is clear that the learned Magistrate before taking a decision, he has to apply his judicious mind and take a decision on the report or to proceed while taking the cognizance for recording the sworn statement, the protest petition in such situation serves the purpose of drawing the Magistrate attention to the materials in the case diary and invite a careful scrutiny and exercise of the mind by the Magistrate. In the case on hand, when the ‘B’ final report is filed before the Court, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to enquire the matter that means he took the cognizance and thereafter examined the witnesses and thereafter issued the process. 34. I have already pointed out that while issuing the process, he has mentioned that he has taken the cognizance and the same has to be redundant and having perused the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, it is clear that the Magistrate when the final ‘B’ report is filed, peruse the same and give an opportunity to the complainant and if he files a protest petition considered the same and if he is not satisfied with the ‘B’ report then he has to proceed by taking the cognizance and record the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, considered the material available before the Court and pass an order either invoke under Sections 203 or 204. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate has invoked Section 204 in issuing the process. While issuing the process also, specifically assigned the reasons for issuing the process. In the order, reasons are assigned that the accused without the knowledge of the complainant got obtained the document in respect of the property said to have been executed by the complainant by impersonating the complainant. Hence, issued the process in coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie material to issue the process. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Magistrate. The Revisional Court only on the ground that the Magistrate was under the confusion in taking of cognizance and issuance of process set aside the order of the Magistrate. Hence, issued the process in coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie material to issue the process. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Magistrate. The Revisional Court only on the ground that the Magistrate was under the confusion in taking of cognizance and issuance of process set aside the order of the Magistrate. The very approach of the Revisional Court is erroneous and if the Magistrate while issuing the process, if he has mentioned that cognizance has taken that does not become an illegal order as observed referring the Judgment of this Court referred supra and the same become redundant and would not nullify the order of the learned Magistrate. Once the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn statement on the basis of the protest petition that itself is taking of the cognizance. Hence, the order passed by the Revisional Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. The very reasoning of the Revisional Court that the procedure is not followed cannot be accepted and he has followed the procedure and passed the order and taking of the cognizance at the time of issuance of process is not an illegal order. Even though earlier was not taken the cognizance while proceeding to record the sworn statement and the same is deemed cognizance and in the second time while issuing the process, mentioning that cognizance is taken not take away the order of the learned Magistrate only on that ground. The learned Magistrate considered the material while issuing the process and rejected the ‘B’ report and issued the process and he has adopted the right method while issuing the process considering the cumulative material on record. Hence, the order passed by the Revisional Court requires to be set aside. 35. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed in Crl.R.P.No.66/2019 dated 25.11.2019 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge at Kolar, is hereby set aside. (iii) The order dated 02.11.2018 passed in PCR No.132/2016 (CC No.1324/2018) by the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Malur, is restored.