Judgment ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging inter alia the entire prosecution in connection with Complaint Case No. 172 of 1994 filed by the opposite party No. 2 alleging offence under Sections 143, 341 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. On the said complain, the police submitted a final report, stating therein, that the complaint is false. Thereafter on 6th May, 1994 the opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate put up the same for hearing on 6th May, and on 6th May the said petition was heard and the case diary was called for. 2. Thereafter by an order dated 23rd August, 1994 the final report was submitted by the police in connection with the complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 on 2nd March, 1994 was accepted by the Magistrate. But later on the same day i.e., 23rd August, 1994 the Magistrate ordered the protest petition which was already filed to be registered and to be put up on 8-9-1994 for enquiry. 3. In the background of these factual aspects, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order dated 23rd August, 1994 which was passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the final report submitted by the police, has become final as the same has not been challenged any where. He further contends that the said order cannot be reviewed by the Magistrate. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh V/s. Kali Singh, reported in AIR 1977 (SC) page 2 32. Reliance was placed on the said decision to the effect that lower court in criminal matters, do not have any inherent power similar to that of Section 15l of Civil Procedure Code. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order which was passed on the same day, i.e., 23rd August, 1994 by the learned Magistrate registering the petition of the opposite party No. 2 must be set aside and quashed by this Honble Court. 4. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 4. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is well settled by a catena of cases that the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance on the basis of a protest petition even though he has accepted the final report of the police on the self-same facts. This position has been made clear by the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Gapal Vijay Verma V/s. Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha, reported in 1982 (3) SC C page 610. The observation of the Supreme Court in paral 1 of the said report at page 511 is set out below : "The High Court was clearly in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take coginizance 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". 5. The said judgment of the Supreme Court has also been followed in several judgments subsequently and the said position is well settled. 6. This court, therefore, is of the view that no error has been committed by the learned Magistrate in directing the enquiry to be made on the protest petition filed by opposite party No. 2 by the order, dated 23rd August, 1994 even though by a previous order passed on the same date he accepted the police report on the self-same facts. It may not be out of context to mention here that the protest petition of the opposite party No. 2 was on record and the same was filed before the Magistate on 5th May, 1994. On the same protest petition the learned Magistrate by the order, dated 6th May, 1994 has also called for the case diary and directed the matter to be put up on the date fixed for further hearing. This was much before the date when the impugned order was passed. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that in the order dated 23rd August, 1994 cannot be quashed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was much before the date when the impugned order was passed. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that in the order dated 23rd August, 1994 cannot be quashed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court is, therefore, of the view that all further proceedings taken by the Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 172 of 1994 are sustainable in law. There is no reason to interfere with the same. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is therefore, dismissed. Let the lower court records be sent down expeditiously.