JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Parsudih (Sundar Nagar) P.S. Case No.198 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2276 of 2015, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 4. The complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that opposite party no.2 was having ancestral land at Mouza Changira having an area of 12 Acres 58 Decimals in which he used to undertake the work of cultivation and fishery. It was further alleged that the mother of opposite party no.2 had acquired the aforesaid property from its previous owner/holder Smt. Hazra Khatoon in the year 1965 vide registered sale deed dated 23.08.1965 and after the death of his mother, the opposite party no.2 was in exclusive possession of the said property as sole legal heir. It was also alleged that the petitioners are the residents of the same village where the opposite party no.2 lives and the property in question is situated and for last one year, the petitioners are having ill eye over the land and pond of opposite party no.2 and they are trying to grab the property of the opposite party no.2. It was further alleged that the petitioners were making false claim with respect to ownership of the said land and they were even restraining the opposite party no.2 from cultivation of the land by opposite party no.2. The petitioners have illegally cut trees worth Rs.20,000/-standing on the land of the opposite party no.2 and when the opposite party no.2 had given information to the Village Pradhan and other villagers, the petitioners had assaulted the opposite party no.2. The petitioners have illegally cut trees worth Rs.20,000/-standing on the land of the opposite party no.2 and when the opposite party no.2 had given information to the Village Pradhan and other villagers, the petitioners had assaulted the opposite party no.2. It was also alleged that even the wall of the opposite party no.2 was damaged by the petitioners and due to which the opposite party no.2 suffered loss to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. It was further alleged that the petitioners had forcibly caught fish from the pond of opposite party no.2 of approximately Rs.10,000/-and when the opposite party no.2 gave information to the aforesaid effect to the concerned Police Station, FIR was not registered by the concerned Police Station and under the said circumstance, the opposite party no.2 has filed the complaint. 5. The said complaint was sent to the police under Section 156(3) for registration of FIR. The police after investigation submitted final form dated 27.08.2015 disclosing the fact that the case is civil in nature. Pursuant to submission of final form, the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 01.12.2015. 6. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned court below without giving any reason of differing with the final form, has taken cognizance against the petitioners. He further submits that even the complainant has not filed protest petition and in absence of any protest petition, the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners. 7. Per contra, Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there are allegations of forcefully damage of wall and catching of fish from the pond of opposite party no.2 by the petitioners and in view of that the case is made out against the petitioners. 8. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the State submits that there are allegations against the petitioners. 9. In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record. It is an admitted fact that the complaint case being Complaint Case No.1343 of 2015 was filed under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. by opposite party no.2 for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The FIR being Parsudih (Sundar Nagar) P.S. Case No.198 of 2015 was registered and the police started investigation. It is an admitted fact that the complaint case being Complaint Case No.1343 of 2015 was filed under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. by opposite party no.2 for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The FIR being Parsudih (Sundar Nagar) P.S. Case No.198 of 2015 was registered and the police started investigation. The investigation was completed by the police and final form dated 27.08.2015 was submitted by the police wherein the police had disclosed that the case is civil in nature. The learned court below has taken cognizance vide order dated 01.12.2015 against the petitioners. It is well within the domain of the learned court to differ with the final form and take cognizance. However, in the case in hand what are the reasons of differing, has not been disclosed in the order taking cognizance. Moreover, it is incumbent upon the learned court to issue notice upon the complainant, which has not been done and in absence of any protest petition, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. At the stage, it was not permissible to consider any material other than that collected by the Investigation Officer. In the case in hand, the cognizance has been taken on the basis of final form wherein it was disclosed that the case is civil in nature. In absence of any protest petition, the learned court below has taken cognizance. The learned court below should have adopted the procedure of complaint case under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses who had filed affidavits under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate could not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. on the basis of protest petition and affidavits filed in support thereof. In the case in hand, protest petition has not been filed by the complainant. The learned court below has not given any reason of differing with the final form. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance is bad in law. Therefore, the order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Parsudih (Sundar Nagar) P.S. Case No.198 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2276 of 2015, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to pass fresh order, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to pass fresh order, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. 11. Consequently, I.A. No. 1910 of 2022 stands disposed of.