JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P.Case No.45 of 2016 where by the learned counsel has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 354 IPC and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner and the case is pending in that learned court. 3. The O.P.no.2 has filed the FIR alleging about the misbehaviour made by this petitioner which was investigated by the police and final form was submitted in which the case has been stated to be not found to be proved and thereafter the O.P.no.2 filed the complaint cum protest petition alleging therein that the complainant has alleged that she along with her family resides at Sector VI/B, Quarter No.2083, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and she is a law abiding citizen. It has further been alleged that the father of the complainant late Dr. Ranjeet Tripathi was founder lecturer cum former Reader and Head of the Department of Hindi in Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro. It has further been alleged that the said house in which the complainant and her family members reside, has been allotted by the BSL management. It has further been alleged that on several occasions the petitioner tortured her and her family members on the pretext of vacating the quarter and tried to forcibly vacate the quarter. However, sizable amount of her father could not be paid due to influence of the petitioner. It has further been alleged that on 26.2.2015 at about 6 PM when the complainant was at home in the meantime the accused persons came and knocked her door. When she opened the main door of her house, then accused held her right hand with bad intention and started outraging her modesty talking with filthy language. It has further been alleged that the complainant became afraid and called her sisters and the accused on seeing the person coming there, started fleeing from the house. When she opened the main door of her house, then accused held her right hand with bad intention and started outraging her modesty talking with filthy language. It has further been alleged that the complainant became afraid and called her sisters and the accused on seeing the person coming there, started fleeing from the house. It has further been alleged that at that relevant time no male members were present in the house and the accused tried to get the benefit of the same. It has further been alleged that the outer door of the house is surrounded with the grill and by chance at that time the same was opened and the accused tried to get the benefit of the same. It has been alleged that a complaint was lodged in the police station but police officer has not done proper investigation and final form was submitted. It has been alleged that after that accused persons came on 21.3.2015 and threatened them for withdrawal of case, failing which ready to face its consequences. 4. Mr. Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said allegation in the FIR as well as in the protest cum complaint petition are same. He took the Court to both the FIR as well as the protest cum complaint petition. He submits that the learned Court has not accepted the final form and he has not differed with the final form also and only on the protest petition he has taken cognizance which is against the mandate of law. He submits that the petitioner was Principal of Bokaro Steel City, College and the father of the complainant was Head of the Department of Hindi in the said college and has retired in the year 2003 and he has not vacated the quarter and for that several letters have been issued and on malafide intention the FIR was lodged. Since he was being pressurized to vacate the quarter in question which was required to be investigated by the police and final form has been submitted and stating all these facts the case against the petitioner was not found to be true. 5. Per Contra, Mr. Since he was being pressurized to vacate the quarter in question which was required to be investigated by the police and final form has been submitted and stating all these facts the case against the petitioner was not found to be true. 5. Per Contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the Court is competent to take cognizance on the protest petition and by way of referring the paragraph no.5 of the complaint petition, he submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and this Court may not interfere at this stage. 6. In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the FIR was instituted by the O.P.No.2 which was investigated by the police and the final form has been submitted whereby the petitioner has not been sent up for trial. On the protest petition filed by the O.P.no.2 the learned court has taken cognizance. The Court has perused the FIR as well as the protest petition and found that in both the documents the allegations are same. The police has already investigated the matter and submitted the final form stating therein that the case has been malafidely filed against the petitioner as the petitioner was not vacating the quarter inspite of the retirement and the case was not found to be true and on the protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance. It is well settled that once the final form is submitted it is incumbent upon the learned court that either to accept the final form or to reject the same and thereafter to call upon the informant to file the complaint petition. In the case in hand, the learned court has not accepted the final form nor rejected the final form and no reason has been disclosed in the cognizance order as to why the cognizance is being taken inspite of the final form in favour of the petitioner. It is well within the domain of the learned Court to differ with the final form however, for the same some reasons are required to be assigned on differing with the same and thereafter the court may proceed by way of calling upon the informant which is lacking in the case in hand. It is well within the domain of the learned Court to differ with the final form however, for the same some reasons are required to be assigned on differing with the same and thereafter the court may proceed by way of calling upon the informant which is lacking in the case in hand. Issue of summons against anybody is a serious matter and it is not that only two witnesses has to be examined and the learned court will issue the summons. A reference may be made to the case of “Pepsi Food Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate”, (1998) 5 SCC 749 . Paragraph no.28 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 7. In view of the above facts, the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and the reasons and the analysis as referred to above, this petition succeeds. 8. The order taking cognizance dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P.Case No.45 of 2016 and the entire criminal proceeding arising thereof is quashed. 9. Cr.M.P. No. 3370 of 2017 stands disposed of. 10. I.A if any also stands disposed of.