JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY , J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 13.04.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Protest –cum-Complaint Case Number 1982 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 147/323/427 of the Indian Penal Code inter-alia against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly they caused hurt to the complainant by beating her, indulging in rioting and caused mischief by damaging the property worth more than Rs.50/- of the complainant. On the basis of the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition filed by the complainant, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case inter-alia against the petitioners. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand , (2024) 6 SCC 758 , the relevant portion of para -15 of which reads as under:- “15. Xxxxxxxxxx If such police report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options: (i) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding, or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.” and submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by not considering the materials collected by the police during the investigation of the case. Hence, on this score, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharam Pal and Others Vs. Hence, on this score, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another , (2014) 3 SCC 306 para -36 of which reads as under:- “36.This brings us to the third question as to the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate if he was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out to go to trial despite the final report submitted by the police. In such an event, if the Magistrate decided to proceed against the persons accused, he would have to proceed on the basis of the police report itself and either inquire into the matter or commit it to the Court of Session if the same was found to be triable by the Sessions Court.” And submits that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by finding prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that, true it is that, one of the options for the Magistrate if the police report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, he may accept the report and drop the proceeding but in case, the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding, then in such case, the same can be done, only after the informant is given an opportunity of being heard; So that the informant can make a submission to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. It is then submitted that in this case, exactly upon such an opportunity being given to the complainant, the complainant filed the Protest- cum-Complaint petition and the complainant was given opportunity by recording his statement under solemn affirmation and also examining the inquiry witnesses and on the basis of the same, the learned Magistrate having found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 147/323/427 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegation as has come in the protest-cum-complaint petition, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, that the petitioners along with the co-accused persons being members of an unlawful assembly committed rioting and caused hurt to the complainant and also caused mischief causing damage of property of more than Rs.50/- of the complainant. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in finding prima facie case for the offences. It is next submitted that the petitioners have deliberately evaded appearing before the learned trial court for over three years; even though they were very much aware that they have to appear before the trial court and because of non- cooperation of the petitioners, the learned trial court has not yet considered the framing of charge. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petitioner being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another , (1985) 2 SCC 537 wherein it has been held that if the police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, states that in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate in that case has the option to adopt one of the three courses as mentioned in Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment but if the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and to drop the proceeding, then in such case the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard, so that he can make his submission to persuade the Magistrate to take the cognizance of the offence and issue process. In this case after police submitted final report and did not send up the petitioners for trial, the Magistrate decided to drop the proceeding and issue notice to the informant and compliance of the mandate as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another (supra) . In compliance of such notice, the complainant appeared and filed protest-cum-complaint petition on the basis of the protest-cum-complaint petition. Consequently, the statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of inquiry witnesses were recorded by the learned Magistrate. After recording of the same the learned Magistrate found sufficient material to constitute prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 147/323/427 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that no procedural error has been committed by the learned Magistrate in giving opportunity of being heard to the informant after submission of the Final Report by the police to the effect that the allegations against the petitioners is not true; which in turn indicates that no offence appears to have been committed. 8. So far as the allegations against the petitioners are concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners being the members of an unlawful assembly indulged in rioting, caused hurt to the wife of the complainant being variously armed and caused hurt to the complainant by beating him and caused destruction of a tree and also committed theft of Rs.3,500/- from the pocket of the complainant. 9. 9. In view of this direct and specific allegations against the petitioners, this Court also do not find any illegality in the order dated 13.04.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh finding prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 147/323/427 of the Indian Penal Code inter-alia against the petitioners, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.