JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.A.N. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. At the outset, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, he was juvenile and the case was bifurcated and the case of petitioner no.3 was adjudicated by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi thereby petitioner no.3 has been acquitted. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing this petition so far as petitioner no.3 is concerned and he has confined his prayer for petitioner nos. 1 and 2 only. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.07.2015 passed in Protest cum Complaint Case No.2593/2014 whereby the learned court has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 506, 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 4. The Protest cum Complaint Case No.2593 of 2014 was instituted by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has stated in the complaint petition that when he had filed complaint case before the learned court registered as C-862/2014, the said case was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police for institution and investigation. After receipt of the complaint petition, the concerned police registered the case being Kanke P.S. Case No.77/2014 and it was alleged that without proper investigation the final form was submitted and hence, the protest final report was filed in the learned court. It was alleged in the Protest cum Complaint petition that the informant/complainant is owner with respect of Plot no.468/1 and 468/2 situated at Village Chandwe under Kanke Police Station, Kanke. It was further alleged that the accused persons also got land adjacent to the land of the complainant/informant having common passage of 5' to egress and out gress connecting the main road. It was further alleged in the Protest cum Complaint Petition that the accused persons compelled the complainant/informant to give 10' of land out of lands of complainant without consideration in writing. It was further alleged that the complainant left 5' his own land as set back to get the map sanctioned from Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It was further alleged in the Protest cum Complaint Petition that the accused persons compelled the complainant/informant to give 10' of land out of lands of complainant without consideration in writing. It was further alleged that the complainant left 5' his own land as set back to get the map sanctioned from Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It was also alleged that on refusal by the complainant the accused persons started creating trouble in his construction work, carried by witness no.2 in the complainant petition. It was further alleged that on 15.03.2014 the accused persons confined the complainant and asked to leave 10' of the land out of his plot forever, on refusal by the complainant, the accused persons abused in filthy language and put the complainant in fear of severe injury and asked to sign on the stamp paper transferring 10' land in their name forever. The accused no.1 submitted a plan for sanction before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation showing the lands of complainant as his own though the accused purchased land with 5' of passage, but by interpolating in the map and making forgery shown 10' in the map attached with his sale deed. It was further alleged that the accused persons by forging their deed made interpolation showing 10' in the map. It was also alleged that the accused persons with the help and assistance of land mafia demanded ransom or 10' of land failing which the entire construction would be demolished. The accused no.1 got initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C, the police submitted in his report that the accused have no concern with the land and recommended to drop the proceeding. The informant/complainant has further alleged in the Protest cum Complaint Petition that the complainant also filed informatory petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi registered as Informatory Petition No.684/2013. It was also alleged that the Police neither examined the witness named in the complaint petition nor verified the interpolation map in the office of Ranchi Regional Development Authority and filed final report without proper investigation of the issue involved in the case and, hence, the Protest cum Complaint Petition has been filed to summon the accused persons to face trial in the case. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the complaint filed by the informant/complainant, the learned court has referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR and investigation and pursuant thereto the police has investigated the matter and submitted final form whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. He further submits that on the protest petition filed by opposite party no.2, the learned court has taken cognizance that too without giving any reason of difference from the final form. He also submits that the dispute is arising out of the road and illegal construction by opposite party no.2. He submits that the petitioner no.1 has brought in the knowledge of the illegal sanction map to the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and pursuant thereto the Commissioner has directed to take action against one Anil Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer and thereafter the complaint case has been filed. He further submits that the police has also recommended for taking action under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant/complainant. On these grounds, he submits that the proceeding is malicious and this petition is fit to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners can take all the grounds in the trial court. 7. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and that is why the learned court has rightly taken cognizance against them. He further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. The Court has perused the material on the record in light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and finds that admittedly the complaint case was filed which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of the FIR and investigation. Pursuant thereto the police has investigated the matter, whereby, the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi on the complaint of petitioner no.1 has recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against one Anil Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer of Ranchi Municipal Corporation for release of illegal sanction map and thereafter the case has been filed. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi on the complaint of petitioner no.1 has recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against one Anil Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer of Ranchi Municipal Corporation for release of illegal sanction map and thereafter the case has been filed. The police has also recommended for initiation of proceeding against the informant/complainant under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned court has not given any reason of differing with the opinion of the police while submitting the charge-sheet and the learned court has taken cognizance only on the Protest cum Complaint Case filed by opposite party no.2. 9. It is well-settled that the Magistrate is not bound to accept police report, but for that Magistrate has to apply his independent mind. It is also well-settled that even the final form is submitted that no case is made out, the Magistrate can differ with the police report and take cognizance. The Magistrate is not bound to accept the opinion of the Investigating Officer. The issue of taking cognizance by the Magistrate has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 wherein the learned Magistrate has differed with the final form and took cognizance assigning reason and the Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted that coming to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the impugned order. However in the case in hand, final form has been submitted by the police stating that the case is found not true and the learned court without assigning any reason, has taken cognizance on the protest petition filed by the opposite party no.2. Admittedly, the issue is arising out of length of the road and on the complaint of petitioner no.1, the Commissioner of South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi has directed to initiate proceeding against one Junior Engineer for illegally sanctioning the map and thereafter the case has been filed. Moreover, the entire family has been implicated in the case, even the minor has not been spared who is petitioner no.3 in this case and his case has been bifurcated and the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi by reasoned order has acquitted the petitioner no.3. 10. Moreover, the entire family has been implicated in the case, even the minor has not been spared who is petitioner no.3 in this case and his case has been bifurcated and the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi by reasoned order has acquitted the petitioner no.3. 10. In view of the above facts, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, reasons and analysis, it appears that the case is arising at the malicious prosecution and entire family has been implicated in the case including the wife of petitioner no.1 and minor son of petitioner no.1. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.07.2015 passed in Protest cum Complaint Case No.2593/2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is, hereby, quashed. 11. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. 12. Interim order dated 11.09.2017 stands vacated.