http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: INDIA CARAT PVT. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/02/1989

BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  885            1989 SCR  (1) 718  1989 SCC  (2) 132        JT 1989 (1)   308  1989 SCALE  (1)370

ACT:     Criminal  Procedure Code 1973: Sections 190,  200,  202, 203,  204  and  482--Magistrate  directing  registration  of calendar  case  under  Sections 408, 420 IPC  and  issue  of summons----Jurisdiction  of  Magistrate to  deal  with  such complaints--High   Court  setting  aside  the   Magistrate’s order--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant  gave  a report to  the  Commissioner  of Police  against the second respondent, alleging that he  had committed  the offences of cheating and criminal  breach  of trust.  It was alleged that the second respondent,  who  was employed   by  the  appellant  as  its  Divisional   Manager (Export-Import)  had negotiated on behalf of  the  appellant with  an Italian firm for supply of quality  granite  stones and had obtained a letter of credit and availing the  credit facility, had drawn a sum of Rs. 13,69,750 and  misappropri- ated the amount.     A case was registered and investigated, but subsequently the  police  sent a ’B’ Report to the  Court,  stating  that further investigation was not required as the case was of  a civil  nature.  Aggrieved by the report, the  appellant  ap- proached the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for  quashing  the report and for permission  to  prove  the commission of offences by the second respondent. The  Magis- trate  passed an order for a calendar case being  registered against the second respondent for offences punishable  under Sections 408 and 420 I.P.C. and for issuing summons to him.     Thereupon  the second respondent filed a petition  under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court and sought the quashing  of  the order of the Magistrate.  The  High  Court allowed  the petition and set aside the order of the  Magis- trate on the ground that the Magistrate had not followed the procedure  for  taking cognizance of the  case  and  issuing process  to  the  accused after the police had  sent  a  ’B’ report in the case. According to the High Court, the  Magis- trate should have issued notice to the appellant to find out whether  he was disputing the correctness of the ’B’  report and if so, to comply with the requirements of Section 200

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

719 of  the Code. The High Court further stated that only  after examining  the  appellant  on oath and  his  witnesses,  the Magistrate  should  have decided whether a  case  should  be registered and process issued to the accused.     Aggrieved  by the High Court’s order, the appellant  has preferred this appeal by special leave.     On  behalf of the appellant, it was contended  that  the second respondent had no locus to question the order of  the Magistrate  and that the Magistrate was justified in  taking cognizance of the offence and directing the issue of process to the second respondent.     On  behalf of the respondent, it was argued  that  since the  Magistrate had not followed the procedure laid down  in Section 200 or Section 202, the second respondent was  enti- tled  to seek quashing the order of the Magistrate, and  the High  Court  was  right in setting aside the  order  of  the Magistrate. Allowing the appeal,     HELD:  1.  On receipt of a complaint  a  Magistrate  has several courses open to him. The Magistrate may take  cogni- zance  of the offence at once and proceed to  record  state- ments  of  the complainant and the witnesses  present  under Section  200.  After recording those statements, if  in  the opinion of the Magistrate there is no sufficient ground  for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint under Section  203. On  the  other hand if in his opinion  there  is  sufficient ground  for  proceeding he may issue process  under  Section 264. If, however, the Magistrate thinks fit, he may postpone the  issue of process and either inquire into the case  him- self  or  direct an investigation to be made by  the  police officer  or  such  other person as he thinks  fit,  for  the purpose  of  deciding  whether or not  there  is  sufficient ground  for proceeding. He may then issue process if in  his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding or dismiss the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for  proceed- ing.  Yet  another  course open to the  Magistrate  is  that instead  of taking cognizance of the offence  and  following the procedure laid down under Section 200 or Section 202, he may  order an investigation to be made by the  police  under Section 156(3). When such an order is made, the police  will have  to  investigate the matter and submit a  report  under Section  173(2). On receiving the police report  the  Magis- trate  may  take  cognizance of the  offence  under  Section 190(1)(0) and issue process straightaway to the accused. The Magistrate may exercise his powers in this  720 behalf  irrespective of the view expressed by the police  in their  report whether an offence has been made out  or  not. This is because the police report under Section 173(2)  will contain  the facts discovered or unearthed by the police  as well as the conclusion drawn by the police therefrom. If the Magistrate  is satisfied that upon the facts  discovered  or unearthed by the police there is sufficient material for him to  take  cognizance of the offence and issue  process,  the Magistrate  may  do so without reference to  the  conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer because the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police officer as to whether an offence has been made out or not. Alternately the  Magis- trate,  on receiving the police report, may without  issuing process  or  dropping the proceeding proceed  to  act  under Section 200 by taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed  to record  the statement upon oath of the complainant  and  the witnesses  present  and thereafter decide whether  the  com-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

plaint  should  be dismissed or process  should  be  issued. [725D-H;726A-C]     2.1  The position is, therefore, now well  settled  that upon  receipt  of  a police report under  section  173(2)  a Magistrate  is  entitled to take cognizance  of  an  offence under  Section  190(1)(b)  of the Code even  if  the  police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the  investi- gation and take cognizance of the offence complained of  and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does  not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance  of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an  opin- ion  that the investigation has made out a case against  the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by  the  investigating officer and independently  apply  his mind  to the facts emerging from the investigation and  take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers  under  Section  190(1)(b) and direct  the  issue  of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in  such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Section 200 and  202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a  case  under Section  190(1)(b)  though it is open to him  to  act  under Section 200 or Section 202 also. The High Court was,  there- fore,  wrong in taking the view that the  Second  Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not entitled to direct the registration  of  a case against the second  respondent  and order the issue of summons to him. [728C-F]     2.2 The fact that in this case the investigation had not originated from a complaint preferred to the Magistrate  but had been made  721 pursuant to a report given to the police would not alter the situation in any manner. Even if the appellant had preferred a  complaint  before the Magistrate and the  Magistrate  had ordered investigation under Section 156(3), the police would have had to submit a report under Section 173(2). [728G-H]     K.  Sham  Rao v. A.R. Diwakar, [1979]  2  Karnataka  Law Journal  441;  Nagawwa  v. S. Konjalgi, [1976]  3  SCC  736; Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, [1967] 3 SCR  668; H.S. Bains v. State, [1981] 1 SCR 935 and Tufa Ram & Ors. v. Kishore Singh, [1978] 1 SCR 615 relied on.     Setting aside the order of the High Court and  restoring the  order of the Magistrate, this Court directed  that  the case against the Second Respondent shall proceed in  accord- ance with law. [729B-C]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1989.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  31.10.1987  of  the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 400 of 1986. M.V. Goswami and B.R.G.K. Achar for the Appellant. B. Krishna Prasad and P.K. Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. Special Leave granted.     This  appeal  by special leave is  directed  against  an order of the High Court of Karnataka under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code (For short the Code) setting aside the  order or  the  Second Additional  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate, Bangalore  directing  the registration of  a  calendar  case against the second respondent under Sections 408 and 420  of the Indian Penal Code and the issue of summons to him  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Section 204 of the Code.     So far as the facts are concerned, they are as  follows. The  appellant gave a report to the Commissioner of  Police, Bangalore on 20.2.1980 against the second respondent  alleg- ing  that  he  had committed the offences  of  cheating  and criminal  breach  of trust. It was averred that  the  second respondent, was its Divisional Manager  722 (Export-Import)  and  had negotiated on its behalf  with  an Italian  firm  in July 1979 for supply  of  quality  granite stones and had obtained a letter credit. Availing the credit facility, he had drawn a sum of Rs. 13,59,750 but failed  to supply  granite stones to the Italian firm and  instead  had misappropriated the amount.     On the foot of the report, a case was registered against the second respondent in Ulsoor Police Station as Crime  No. 145/1980 under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and  the case was investigated by Shri Bayar,  Inspector  of Police. When Shri Bayar went away on promotion, his  succes- sor  took over the investigation but subsequently he sent  a "B"  Report to the Court stating that further  investigation was not required as the case was of a civil nature.     Aggrieved  by the report sent by the police, the  appel- lant  approached  the Second Additional  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate,  Bangalore  for  the report  being  quashed  and permission  granted  to him to prove the commission  of  of- fences  by  the second respondent. The  learned  Magistrate, after  perusing the investigation records came to  the  view that  a  prima-facie case was made out  against  the  second respondent and consequently he passed an order for a  calen- dar case being registered against him for offences  punisha- ble under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code  and for summons being issued to him under Sec. 204 of the Code.     Thereupon, the second respondent filed a petition  under Sec.  482 of the Code before the High Court and  sought  the quashing  of  the order of the Magistrate.  The  High  Court allowed  the petition and set aside the order of the  Magis- trate  on  the ground the Magistrate had  not  followed  the procedure laid down by the Code for taking cognisance of the case and issuing process to the accused after the police had sent a ’B’ report in the case. The High Court has held  that on  receipt  of the ’B’ report, the Magistrate  should  have issued  notice to the appellant to find out whether  he  was disputing  the correctness of the ’B’ report and, if so,  to comply  with the requirements of Sec. 200 of the  Code.  The High Court has further stated that only after examining  the appellant. on oath and his witnesses, the Magistrate  should have decided whether a case should be registered and process issued  to the accused. The High Court has referred  to  the ratio  laid  down  in an earlier case K. Sham  Rao  v.  A.R. Diwakar, [1979] 2 Karnataka Law Journal 441 and followed it. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant  has come forward with this appeal.  723     Mr.  B.R.G.K. Achar, learned counsel for  the  appellant contended  that the second respondent had no locus to  ques- tion  the order of the Second Additional Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate  and  therefore, the High Court was in  error  in entertaining the petition filed by him under Section 482  of the  Code and setting aside the order of the learned  Magis- trate.  In support of this contention he placed reliance  on the decision in Nagawwa v.S. Konjalgi, [1976] 3 SCC 736.  He further submitted that the Second Additional Chief Metropol- itan  Magistrate  was  entitled to take  cognizance  of  the offences  alleged to have been committed by the  second  re-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

spondent and order the issue of process to him and that  the Magistrate’s  power under Sections 190 and 204 of  the  Code could  well be exercised without advertance to any  possible defence the second respondent may have. The learned  counsel also  stated  that since the police had made  a  perfunctory investigation  and sent a ’B’ report stating that  the  case was  of a civil nature, the Magistrate was perfectly  justi- fied,  in the facts and circumstances of the case in  taking cognizance of the offence and directing the issue of process to the second respondent.     Controverting  these arguments, the learned counsel  for the  respondent submitted that since the police had  sent  a ’B’ report stating that the investigation disclosed that the dispute  between the parties was only of a civil nature  and that  no  offence has been made out against the  second  re- spondent,  the Second Additional Chief  Metropolitan  Magis- trate,  ought to have called upon the appellant to find  out whether  he was challenging the police report and if so,  to make  a sworn statement and also examine his  witnesses  and thereafter  only the learned Magistrate should have  decided whether  cognizance  should  be taken of  the  offences  and process  issued to the second respondent. The learned  coun- sel,  therefore,  argued that since the magistrate  had  not followed  the procedure laid down in Section 200 or  Section 202, the second respondent was entitled to seek quashing  of the order of the Magistrate and as such the High Court  ha:; acted correctly in allowing the second respondent’s petition and setting aside the order of the Magistrate.     Before we examine the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the second respondent, we may  briefly refer to some of the provisions in Chapter X11, XIV, XV  and XVI  of  the Code. Section 155 in Chapter  XII  pertains  to information  laid  to the  police  regarding  non-cognizable cases  and Sub-Section (2) lays down that no police  officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a  Magistrate  having power to try such case or  commit  the case for trial.  724 Section  156(1) confers power on an officer in charge  of  a police  station to investigate any cognizable  case  without the  order  of  a Magistrate. Section  156(3)  authorises  a Magistrate, empowered under Section 190 to order the  police to make an investigation as provided for in Section  156(1). The other provisions in the Chapter from Section 157 onwards set  out the powers of investigation of the police  and  the procedure to be followed. Section 169 prescribes the  proce- dure  to  be followed by an officer in charge  of  a  police station  if it appears to him upon investigation of  a  case that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion  to  justify the forwarding of the  accused  to  a Magistrate.  Section  170  prescribes the  procedure  to  be followed by the officer in charge of a police station if  it appears  to him upon investigation that there is  sufficient evidence  or reasonable ground of suspicion to  justify  the forwarding  of the accused to a Magistrate.  Section  173(1) enjoins  a  Police  Officer to  complete  the  investigation without unnecessary delay. Section 173(2) lays down that  as soon as the investigation is completed the officer in charge of a police station should forward to a Magistrate empowered to  take  cognizance  of an offence on a  police  report,  a report  in the prescribed form stating the various  particu- lars mentioned in that Sub-Section.     Chapter  XIV  deals with the  conditions  requisite  for initiation of proceedings and as to the powers of cognizance of a Magistrate. For our purpose it is enough if we  extract

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Section 190(1) alone.               "Section  190(1).  Cognizance of  offences  by               Magistrates-Subject to the provisions of  this               Chapter,  any Magistrate of the  first  class,               and  any Magistrate of the second  class  spe-               cially  empowered  in this behalf  under  sub-               section  (2), may take cognizance of  any  of-               fence--               (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts  which               constitute such offence;               (b) upon a police report of such facts;               (c) upon information received from any  person               other  than a police officer, or upon his  own               knowledge, that such offence has been  commit-               ted."      Chapter XV which contains Section 200 to 203 deals with "Complaints  to Magistrate". A Magistrate taking  cognizance of  an  offence on complaint is required by Section  200  to examine the complaint and  725 the  witnesses present, if any. Section 202 provides that  a Magistrate taking cognizance of a case, upon complaint, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against  the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or  direct investigation  to  be made by a police officer  or  by  such other  person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of  deciding whether  or not there is sufficient ground  for  proceeding. Section  203  empowers the Magistrate to  dismiss  the  com- plaint, if after considering the statements on oath (if any) of  the complainant and of the witnesses and the  result  of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient  ground for proceeding.     Chapter  XVI  deals with  "Commencement  of  Proceedings before Magistrates" and Section 204 empowers a Magistrate to issue summons or a warrant as the case may be, to secure the attendance  of the accused if in the opinion of  the  Magis- trate  taking cognizance of the offence there is  sufficient ground for proceeding.     From  the provisions referred to above, it may  be  seen that  on  receipt of a complaint a  Magistrate  has  several courses  open to him. The Magistrate may take cognizance  of the offence at once and proceed to record statements of  the complainant  and  the witnesses present under  Section  200. After  recording those statements, if in the opinion of  the Magistrate there is no sufficient ground for proceeding,  he may  dismiss the complaint under Section 203. On  the  other hand  if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for  pro- ceeding he may issue process under Section 204. If, however, the  Magistrate  thinks fit, he may postpone  the  issue  of process  and either inquire into the case himself or  direct an  investigation to be made by the police officer  or  such other  person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of  deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. He may then issue process if in his opinion there is sufficient ground  for proceeding or dismiss the complaint if there  is no sufficient ground for proceeding. Yet another course open to  the Magistrate is that instead of taking  cognizance  of the  offence  and following the procedure  laid  down  under Section 200 or Section 202, he may order an investigation to be  made  by the police under Section 156(3). When  such  an order  is  made,  the police will have  to  investigate  the matter and submit a report under Section 173(2). On  receiv- ing the police report the Magistrate may take congnizance of the  offence  under  Section  190(1)(c)  and  issue  process

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

straightaway to the accused. The Magistrate may exercise his powers in this behalf irrespective of the view expressed  by the police in their report whether an offence has been  made out or not. This is because the police report 726 under  Section 173(2) will contain the facts  discovered  or un-earthed by the police as well as the conclusion drawn  by the  police therefrom. If the Magistrate is  satisfied  that upon  the facts discovered or unearthed by the police  there is  sufficient  material for him to take cognizance  of  the offence and issue process, the Magistrate may do so  without reference  to  the  conclusion drawn  by  the  Investigating Officer  because the Magistrate is not bound by the  opinion of the police officer as to whether an offence has been made out  or  not. Alternately the Magistrate, on  receiving  the police  report, may without issuing process or dropping  the proceeding proceed to act under Section 200 by taking cogni- zance of the offence on the basis of the complaint original- ly submitted to him and proceed to record the statement upon oath of the complaint and the witnesses present and thereaf- ter  decide  whether the complaint should  be  dismissed  or process should be issued.     Since  in the present case the Second  Additional  Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate  has taken cognizance  of  offences alleged to have been committed by the second respondent  and ordered issue of process without first examining the  appel- lant and his witnesses, the question for consideration would be whether the Magistrate is entitled under the Code to have acted  in that manner. The question need not detain  us  for long because the power of a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even when the police  report was to the effect that the investigation  has not made out any offence against an accused has already been examined and set out by this Court in Abninandan Jha &  Ors. v.  Dinesh Misra, [1967] 3 SCR 668 and H.S. Bains v.  State, [1981] 1 SCR 935. In Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh  Misra, (supra)  the question arose whether a Magistrate to  whom  a report under Section 173(2) had been submitted to the effect that  no case had been made out against the  accused,  could direct the police to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with  the  report submitted by the Police. This  Court  held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the police to  submit a charge-sheet but it was open to the  Magistrate to  agree or disagree with the police report. If  he  agreed with the report that there was no case made out for  issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and close the  proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that  further investigation  was necessary he might make an order to  that effect under Section 156(3) and if ultimately the Magistrate was  of  the opinion that the facts set out  in  the  police report  constituted an offence he could take  cognizance  of the  offence,  notwithstanding the contrary opinion  of  the police expressed in the report. While expressing the opinion that  the Magistrate could take cognizance of  the  offence, notwithstanding the  727 contrary opinion of the police, the Court observed that  the Magistrate  could take cognizance under  Section  190(1)(c). The reference to Section 190(1)(c) was a mistake for Section 190(1)(b)  and  this  has been pointed  out  in  H.S.  Bains (supra).     In  the case of H.S Bains (supra) one Gurnam Singh  sub- mitted  a  complaint to the Judicial Magistrate  1st  Class, Chandigarh  alleging  that H.S. Bains  trespassed  into  his house along with two others on 11-8-1979 at about 8 a.m. and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

threatened to kill him and his son. The Magistrate  directed the  police  under  Section 156(3) of the Code  to  make  an investigation.  After  completing  the  investigation,   the police  submitted a report to the Magistrate  under  Section 173(2) of the Code stating that the case against the accused was  not true and that the case may be dropped. The  learned Magistrate  disagreed with the conclusion of the police  and took  cognizance of the case under Sections 448 and  506  of the  Indian Penal Code and directed the issue of process  to the accused. Thereupon, the accused moved the High Court for quashing the proceedings before the Magistrate. As the  High Court  declined  to interfere, the accused  approached  this Court by way of appeal by special leave. Various contentions were  advanced on behalf of the accused and one of them  was that the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance  of the case upon the police report since the report was to  the effect that no offence had been committed by the accused. It was  further urged that if the Magistrate was not  satisfied with the police report, there were only two courses open  to him,  viz.  either to order a further investigation  of  the case by the police or to take cognizance of the case himself as  if  upon a complaint and record the  statements  of  the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of the  Code and  then  issue process if he was satisfied that  the  case should  be proceeded with. Repelling those contentions  this Court held as follows:               "The  Magistrate is not bound by  the  conclu-               sions  arrived at by the police even as he  is               not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the               complainant  in a complaint. If a  complainant               states the relevant facts in his complaint and               alleges  that  the  accused is  guilty  of  an               offence  under Section 307 Indian  Penal  Code               the magistrate is not bound by the  conclusion               of  the  complainant. He may  think  that  the               facts  disclose an offence under  Section  324               Indian Penal Code only and he may take congni-               zance of an offence under Section 324  instead               of  Section 307. Similarly if a police  report               mentions that half a dozen persons examined by               them claim to be eye witnesses to a murder but               that for                728               various  reasons  the witnesses could  not  be               believed,  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 as revealed by the police report. He               would  be  taking cognizance  upon  the  facts               disclosed  by the police report though not  on               the conclusions arrived at by the police."     The  position is, therefore, now well settled that  upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is  entitled to take cognizance of an offence under  Section 190(1)(b)  of the Code even if the police report is  to  the effect  that  no case is made out against the  accused.  The Magistrate  can  take  into account the  statements  of  the witnesses  examined by the police during  the  investigation and  take cognizance of the offence complained of and  order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b)  does not  lay  down that a Magistrate can take cognizance  of  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

offence  only if the investigating officer gives an  opinion that  the  investigation  has made out a  case  against  the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by  the investigating officer ;and independently  apply  his mind  to the facts emerging from the investigation and  take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers  under  Section  190(1)(b) and direct  the  issue  of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in  such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Section 200 and  202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a  case  under Section  190(1)(b)  though it is open to him  to  act  under Section 200 or Section 202 also. The High Court was,  there- fore,  wrong in taking the view that the  Second  Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not entitled to direct the registration  of  a case against the second  respondent  and order the issue of summons to him.     The  fact  that in this case the investigation  had  not originated from a complaint preferred to the Magistrate  but had been made pursuant to a report given to the police would not alter the situation in any manner. Even if the appellant had preferred a complaint before the learned Magistrate  and the  Magistrate  had  ordered  investigation  under  Section 156(3),  the police would have had to submit a report  under Section  173(2).  It  has been held in Tufa Ram  &  Ors.  v. Kishore  Singh, [1978] 1 SCR 615 that if the  police,  after making an investigation, send a report that no case was made out against the accused, the  729 Magistrate  could ignore the conclusion drawn by the  police and  take cognizance of a case under Section  190(1)(b)  and issue  process or in the alternative he can take  cognizance of  the original complaint and examine the  complainant  and his  witnesses and thereafter issue process to the  accused, if he is of opinion that the case should be proceeded with.     In the light of our conclusion, the appeal succeeds  and the  order of the High Court is set aside. The order of  the Second  Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,  Bangalore will stand restored and the case against the second respond- ent will be proceeded further in accordance with law. G.N.                                                  Appeal allowed. 730