PALOK BASU, J. he short question involved in the present revision appli cation under Sections 397401, Cr. P. C. is as to whether the Magistrate is duty bound to take cognizance of a case, the moment there is a protest petition by informant. 2. The facts in the instant case lie in a very narrow compass. An F. I. R. was lodged by Dr. Tikaram Jaglan against 1. Babu s/o Katara, 2. Onkar 3. Babu s/o Raje, 4. Raj Kumar, 5. Kartar, 6. Nirankar and 7. Shiv Raj, on 27-11-1984, regarding an alleged incident which was said to have happened in the night of 22-11- 1984, through an application addressed to the Circle Officer after about 5 days of the incident. This report to the Circle Officer was ultimately sent to the police station concerned for the investigation, A final report followed. It appears that some objections were taken to the said final report. Another investigation was directed, this time by another investigating officer which also ended in a final report. Objections were repeated resulting in yet another investi gation by yet another investigating officer. This time too a final report came. At this stage a protest petition was filed by Dr. Tikaram Jaglan. The Magistrate heard the informant and his counsel and by a detailed order dated 10-1-1986 rejected the protest petition and proceeded to accept the final report. 3. Though not strictly necessary, it may be desirable to mention here that the Magistrate primarily relied upon the fact that on lace occasions final report was forwarded and that the statements of two alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Prithivi-pal and Mohan Das who were examined by the prosecution under Section 164, Cr. P. C. during investigation, did not name any accused, whatsoever. The belated report to the Circle Officer and the absence of any F. I. R. at the police station either by the informant or by any witness, was also taken note of. The F. I. R. was registered under Sections 436379427504506, IPC. Prompt F. I. R. would have revealed the truthfulness or otherwise of the charges by prompt investigation. The view of the Magistrate further was that this opportunity also was permanently lost. Thus came the order of the Magistrate whereby he accepted the final report. 4. Dr. The F. I. R. was registered under Sections 436379427504506, IPC. Prompt F. I. R. would have revealed the truthfulness or otherwise of the charges by prompt investigation. The view of the Magistrate further was that this opportunity also was permanently lost. Thus came the order of the Magistrate whereby he accepted the final report. 4. Dr. Tikaram Jaglan took the matter to the Sessions Court in revision, which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 911986 and has been ultimately allowed on 5-5-1988 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. Four of the named accused, Babu so Katara, Babu so Raje, Onkar and Raj Kumar have challenged the said order of the Sessions Judge, in the present revision. 5. A perusal of the order of the Sessions Judge, indicates that he has interfered with the order of the Magistrate basically on three findings: (a) The learned Magistrate was not justified in accepting the final report on the basis of the reasons given in the impugned order. (b) The protest petition is to be treated as a complaint and the entire procedure of complaint case had to be observed. (c) There was sufficient evidence before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance in the case upon the protest application of the informant and the learned Magistrate did not exercise jurisdiction vested in him properly. 6. I have heard at length Sri R. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appli cants and Sri N. K. Sharma on behalf of the informant. Sri H. P. Tripathi, learned AGA has been heard on behalf of State of U. P. 7. At the outset it must be clarified that the procedure for complaint case is never to be misplaced with the right of the Magistrate to reject a final report, which may be done with or without a protest petition. Time out of number it has been emphasized that a protest petition can and should not be compared to a complaint unless such statement is made by the complainant informant that his petition be treated as a complaint within the meaning of Section 190, Cr. P. C. or for some reason the Magistrate himself treats it as a complaint and follows the procedure contained in Chapter XYI of the Cr. P. C. Such protest petition is only an objection to the acceptance of the final report for which there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. P. C. or for some reason the Magistrate himself treats it as a complaint and follows the procedure contained in Chapter XYI of the Cr. P. C. Such protest petition is only an objection to the acceptance of the final report for which there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. The Hon. Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singhs case reported in A. I. R. 1985 Supreme Court page 1285 had made it incumbent upon the Magistrate to issue notices to the informant before accepting a final report. Obviously, the Supreme Court was not equating a protest petition with a complaint. Coming to the facts of the present case, it must be said that the Sessions Judge, has thus erroneously held the points noted in the Paragraphs (b) and (c) above. Protest petition was not a complaint hence it could not be used as evidence the procedure of complaint case would not have been taken automatically just because of the filing of the protest petition. There fore, there was a serious error in the judgment of the Sessions Judge. 8. A reference may be made to the case of Badi Lal Panchal v. Dattraiya reported in A. I. R. 1960 S. C. page 113. Though their Lordships were dealing with the scope of Magistrates power under Section 203 Cr. P. C. nonetheless it has been observed that if after investigation a report of the investigating agency is received that no case is made out, the Magistrate will have to apply his judicial mind on the materials collected and then form his opinion whether or not to accept the said report. Needless to add that power to issue process is a judicial act which has to be judicially exercised. Just as in a case it might amount to an illegality in dismissing the informants case merely on the basis of a final report, it may equally be true in another case to summon the accused even though there are repeated final reports. It is precisely to check and maintain this balance of justice that a genuine application of mind by the Magistrate is required. 9. A perusal of the order of the Magistrate in the instant case indicates beyond doubt that he has applied his judicial mind and rejected the protest petition and thought of accepting the final report on valid reasons. It is precisely to check and maintain this balance of justice that a genuine application of mind by the Magistrate is required. 9. A perusal of the order of the Magistrate in the instant case indicates beyond doubt that he has applied his judicial mind and rejected the protest petition and thought of accepting the final report on valid reasons. Therefore, the interference by the Sessions Judge, was not called for and he erroneously held point in para (a) above. 10. This revision is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge dated 5-5-1988 in Criminal Revision No. 91 1 fc6. is hereby set aside and that of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 10-1-1986 in case No. Ill of 1985 is restored. 11. After I had dictated the judgment in the open Court Sri N, K. Sharma prayed for leave to appeal to the Hon. Supreme Court. There is no question of public importance so as to require, consideration by the Hen. Supreme Court. This prayer is also rejected. Revision allowed .