R. Balia, J. - (1.) Petition raises a short issue in the following circumstances. On 26-7-88 complainant Shri Jan Mohd. lodged an FIR at P.S. Makrana against the petitioner-accused. After investigation the police submitted a final reportOn 13-6-88 against the submission of final report by the police, the complainant lodged a protest report before the Magistrate. After recording of statements of Jan Mohd, Complainant Sabir Ahmed and Abdul Aziz the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioners under Sections 147, 447 and 323 Indian Penal Code It is against that order dated 10-1-89 this petition has been filed.
(2.) The only contention raised before me is that when the Investigating Agency has submitted a final report, no cognizance could have been taken by ignoring the final report and without assigning the reasons for not accepting the final report. Learned Public Prosecutor states that from the order it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the material that has come on the record during investigation and therefore the order cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity for want of consideration of report submitted by the Investigating Agency.
(3.) It is consistent view of this court that the report as well as material attached to report the Magistrate has to consider and then arrive at its conclusion as to why he accepts or rejects the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and why he intends to take cognizance against the accused inspite of final report. In this connection reference may be made to Jagdish Ram v. State of Raj., 1988 (2) RLR 486 wherein this court after taking notice of dates of earlier decisions of this court and other courts came to the conclusion that in such a case: "that the material placed on record for the perusal of the court has to be a considered and then he is to arrive at a particular conclusion why he accepts or rejects the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and why he intends to take cognizance.";