Judgment S. N. Jha, J. This application has been filed for setting aside an order dated 14.3.1984 where by the learned Magistrate hat accepted the final from submitted by the police and rejected protest petition of the informant. 2. The short facts which led to the filing of the application are that a first information report was lodged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code on 6.3.1983 alleging, inter-alia, that in the night of 5.3.1983 a dacoity took place in the house of the informant and the opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 4 were named in the first information report among the dacoits who committed dacoity in the said house. 3. It appears that on 25.3.1983 a protest petition was filed on behalf of the informant 4. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted final form to the effect that the allegation of dacoity was found correct but these three opposite parties were falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity between the parties. the learned magistrate in the impugned order has stated that in the case diary few witnesses have made statements that the se opposite parties had taken part in the dacoity but all these witnesses are of the family of the informant and they are closely related to him and there is no independent witness to support the allegation against these opposite parties. In that view of the matter the learned magistrate accepted that final form and rejected the protest petition of the informant. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without following the procedures as laid down in the Code of Criminal procedure, the learned Magistrate has illegally rejected the protest petition. It is now well settled that a pretest petition can be treated as a complaint and it will be disposed of accordance with law after examining the complaint on oath and his witnesses, if any. It is now well settled that a pretest petition can be treated as a complaint and it will be disposed of accordance with law after examining the complaint on oath and his witnesses, if any. After a complaint is filed, the Magistrate taking Gogizance of an offence on complaint, shall examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate provided that when the complaint is made in writing by any public servant or by a Court, the magistrate need not examine the complainant, but, that proviso is not applicable in the instant case. It has been decided in a number of cases that a protest petition amounts to a complaint and it can be disposed of after completing all the formalities as laid down under section 190,200,202,203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal procedure (in short the Code ) 6. After examining the complainant and his witnesses, if present, the magistrate for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may postpone the issuance of the process and then he my either inquire into the case himself or call for the report from a police officer after investigation or direct an investigation by such person all he think-s fit, but, where the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the court of Session the magistrate shall call uuon the complainant to produce all his witness and examine them on oath. The magistrate cannot straight-way reject the protest petition. without complying with the provisions as envisaged under the Code as has been done in the instant case It is well known that a judicial inquiry cannot be converted to a fulfilled trial and the inquiring magistrate is only to I find out if there is primafacie evidence to proceed with the case. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, in my view, sofar as that part of the impugned order rejecting the protest petition on is concerned, suffers from manifest illegality and it cannot be sustained in law. In the instant case, the magistrate shall have to follow the procedures as laid down under sections 190, 200, 202, 203 and 204 of the Code. 8. In the instant case, the magistrate shall have to follow the procedures as laid down under sections 190, 200, 202, 203 and 204 of the Code. 8. For the reason stated above that part of the impugned order is quashed and the magistrate is directed to follow the procedure as laid down under the aforesaid, sections of the Code and then pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside 80 far as rejection of the' protest petition is concerned. But, as the Occurrence took place in the year, 1983 the magistrate must complete the enquiry as early as possible. Let the lower court records be sent down at once to the concerned magistrate for taking necessary action as directed by this Court. Application allowed.