K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) IN this case the petitioners are implicated for commission of offence under Sections 436 and 427/34, I. P. C. in G. R. Case No. 187 of 1990 pending for disposal in the Court of the Sub-Divisional-Judicial Magistrate, Banki. In the said G. R. case final report was filed by the police but notice was given to the complainant who protested against the same. The learned Magistrate not accepting the final report and without following the procedure under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance because according to the petitioners, once protest petition is filed after the final report submitted by the police, then that petition is to be treated as a complaint and in that case, the procedure laid down in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed. Without following that cognizance cannot be taken. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied in Orissa State Power Loom Service Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Hrudanda Swain and Dhaneswar Behera and Others v. State of Orissa and Others. Learned Counsel appearing for the State does not deny this position in law. ( 2 ) CHAPTER XV starts with Section 200, Cr. P. C. Section 200 speaks of the examination of the complainant. Section 201 Cr. P. C. speaks of the procedure which the Magistrate has to follow and Section 202, Cr. P. C. is postponement of issue of process to the accused and investigate the matter either himself or through agency. Section 203 is about dismissal of complaint if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. ( 3 ) AS laid down in (1984) 58 C. L. T. 566 (supra) it is well settled that a protest petition when made is to be treated as a complaint petition and the magistrate after complying with the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure may either issue process to the accused person or dismiss the complaint, i. e. such action is to be taken by the Magistrate only. The statement of the complainant and his witnesses are required under law and not otherwise. The statement of the complainant and his witnesses are required under law and not otherwise. ( 4 ) SO also in 1987 (11) O. L. R. 562 (supra) where Policy Agency submitted final report on the basis of protest petition treated the petition of the complainant in violation of the principles to the effect. When in a complaint case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, no cognizance can be taken by a Magistrate without examining all the witnesses for the complainant as required by proviso to Section 202 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on the basis of some witnesses or in course of investigation by the Police Agency as has been done in the instant case the order passed by the Magistrate was quashed and the revision petition was allowed. ( 5 ) IN this case also the offence is under Sections 436 and 427/34, I. P. C. The offence under Section 436, I. P. C. is triable by the Court of Sessions only. Therefore without following the proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 202, Cr. P. C. whivh provides that is it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall call upon the complainant to produce his witnesses and examine them on oath. Such provision not having been followed the order passed by the Magistrate is illegal and is hereby set aside. The case is remitted to the Magistrate. He is directed to reconsider the matter in view of Section 202 (2), Cr. P. C. and pass suitable order according to law. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed. Case remanded. .