Judgment:
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.
1. The point involved in this case is this: when the police filed a final report after investigation holding that no offence against the accused mentioned in the FIR is made out, the aggrieved person filed a protest complaint on the same allegations. But before the protest complaint was filed before the Magistrate he had passed an order on 27-1-1996: “Notice on the final report was served on the complainant and none is present for opposing the final report and hence the final report is accepted.” The protest complaint was filed on 19-4-1996. The High Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate on the protest complaint as per the impugned order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha1 which reads thus: (SCC p. 511, para 1)
“1. The High Court was clearly in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of a case upon complaint because he had earlier refused to take cognizance of the case on a police report. The order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for disposal according to law. If the accused have any further objections to raise, they may do so before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.”
3. In further support of his contention he has invited our attention to the detailed facts of the judgment of the Patna High Court which was the judgment challenged in the aforecited decision (the said judgment of the Patna High Court is reported in Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the said case also the Magistrate has closed the proceedings accepting the final report prior to the lodging of the protest complaint.
4. We feel that the legal position involved in the present case must be decided by a larger Bench. Hence the Registry will place this for orders of the Hon\'ble Chief Justice of India.