C. A. RAHIM, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants is present. Learned counsel for the opposite party is found absent at the time of hearing. This matter is pending since 1982 and it has not been admitted as yet. Since intricate question of law is involved, the hearing is taken up to see whether the application is maintainable ex facie before the eye of law. ( 2 ) THE fact which is for consideration of the present application, is that the opposite party No. 1 lodged one first information report on 23-5-1982 under Section 395/397, I. P. C. naming the applicants and 22 others as accused with the allegation that in between the night of 22/23-5-1982 the accused persons removed the goods by demolishing the boundary wall of the house of the complainant. A case was registered but the Investigating Officer after investigation submitted a final report. On 7-6-1982 the opposite party No. 1 filed a protest petition with the allegation that the final report has been submitted without proper investigation and as such it should not be accepted and sent back for re-investigation. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, by an order dated 30-6-1982 refused to accept the final report and observed that though no offence is made out under Sections 395/397, I. P. C. In the absence of any motive or intention to commit the dacoity, a prima facie case under Sections 147/148/427/447 and 379, I. P. C. was made out and issued process against the accused-applicants under the aforesaid Sections and fixed 2-8-1982 for further orders. This is subject-matter of the grievance. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel has submitted that this order was passed by the Magistrate without issuing any notice to the applicants for giving an opportunity of hearing to them. So according to him the principles of natural justice have been violated and the order becomes illegal. He has referred the case of Gajendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of U. P. reported in 1994 All Cri C 341. Referring the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police reported in 1985 All Cri C 246 : 1985 Cri LJ 1521 : AIR 1985 SC 1285 (SC ). He has referred the case of Gajendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of U. P. reported in 1994 All Cri C 341. Referring the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police reported in 1985 All Cri C 246 : 1985 Cri LJ 1521 : AIR 1985 SC 1285 (SC ). The learned Judge of the single Bench held that though there is no statutory provision that before rejecting the final report the Magistrate must hear the accused, but when in the absence of similar provision the complainant is being heard before accepting the final report, as held in the decision of Bhagwan Das v. State (1988 All Cri C 571) : AIR 1989 All 83 the said opportunity should also be given to the accused while rejecting the final report and before issuing the process. In that decision some cases have also been referred showing that it is violative of natural justice vis-a-vis the provision of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) IN the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (supra) AIR 1985 SC 1285 : 1985 All Cri C 246 : 1985 Cri LJ 1521 it was decided that the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. The learned Judge in deciding the Gajendara Kumar Agarwals case 1994 All Cri 341 has observed that the same reason should follow at the time of rejecting the final report and issuing process against the accused and the accused should be heard. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel has submitted that in this case the applicants did not appear before the Magistrate after lodging of the case till submission of the final report. So it is clear that at the time of consideration of the final report by the Magistrate the accused persons were not before him. Since the complainant was pursuing the matter, he took initiative to file a protest petition for re-investigation. The learned Magistrate after hearing the complaint and after perusing the case diary on the record did not allow the prayer of the complainant and issued process instead. There is no allegation that the Magistrate did not apply his mind while rejecting the final report and issued process. The only grievance is that the accused persons were not heard and hence natural justice was violated. There is no allegation that the Magistrate did not apply his mind while rejecting the final report and issued process. The only grievance is that the accused persons were not heard and hence natural justice was violated. ( 6 ) IN Criminal Procedure Code there is provision for lodging cases through police and through court. An aggrieved person can file a cognizable case before police under Section 154, Cr. P. C. He is also entitled to file a complaint before the court of law, without going to the police station, under Section 200, Cr. P. C. After institution of the case certain procedures are being observed to find out the prima facie case. Till then the accused persons are not summoned or allowed to take part in the proceeding. Investigation by police is also for finding the truth or in other words to find out prima facie case against the accused persons and when that process is completed charge sheet or final report is filed before the court to proceed or not to proceed against the accused. The Magistrate has got power to accept the final report or the chargesheet or order for investigation or issue process, if there is any material to proceed against the accused persons. If the contention of the learned-counsel is accepted then the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code with regard to institution of the cases, till accused is called for is to be re-written. As in the case of Complaint cases appearance of the persons has been denied in the Criminal Procedure Code under Sections 200, 202 and 204, Cr. P. C. In police cases charge sheet can be accepted or rejected in the absence of accused persons. But according to the learned counsel the final report can be accepted in the absence of the accused but it cannot be rejected without hearing the accused persons. If by accepting the charge sheet the right of the accused persons is not encroached upon, I fail to understand why in rejecting the final report it would be so alleged. It is an established position of law that when an Act provides a particular procedure, it should be followed. Right of accused persons to be heard in case of accepting the charge sheet or rejecting the final report arises only when they are before the court. It is an established position of law that when an Act provides a particular procedure, it should be followed. Right of accused persons to be heard in case of accepting the charge sheet or rejecting the final report arises only when they are before the court. If the accused persons would have appeared in connection with this case or arrested or produced before the Magistrate and released on bail or lodged in custody, they would have claimed that without audience no order be passed affecting their right. But when they did not appear in this case and were not before the learned Magistrate at the time of consideration of the final report it cannot be argued that without giving an opportunity to them no order can be passed. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to ask for the presence of the accused without issuing process and process cannot be issued without having prima facie case. So there was no scope for the learned Magistrate to call upon the accused persons and to participate in the hearing at the stage when prima facie case was being looked into, particularly when they did not choose to appear prior to the stage of filing of the final report. So I do not consider that the learned Magistrate has committed any wrong in rejecting the final report and issued process against the accused persons in their absence. ( 7 ) THE ratio of the decision of Bhagwant Singhs (supra) AIR 1985 SC 1285 : 1985 All Cri C 246 : 1985 Cri LJ 1521 case cannot be applied in the instant matter as being a complainant he has a right to proceed with at the stage when final report is being considered and particularly when he has filed a protest petition but no such right of the accused persons existed as they did not appear in that case prior to that stage. I respectfully differ with the decision of single Judge of Gajendra Kumar Agarwals (supra) 1994 All Cri C 341 case of this Court in this respect. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel has then submitted that when a protest petition has been filed it was necessary for the learned Magistrate to examine witnesses under Sections 200/202, Cr. P. C. before issuing process against the applicants. I do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel has then submitted that when a protest petition has been filed it was necessary for the learned Magistrate to examine witnesses under Sections 200/202, Cr. P. C. before issuing process against the applicants. I do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel. The learned Magistrate has got discretion to reject the final report even without receiving a protest petition of the complainant. In the instant case the prayer of the complainant was not allowed. The learned Magistrate independently decided the matter and came to a finding independent to the relief asked for by the complainant. I do not think that the Magistrate was out of jurisdiction in doing so. As both the points fail, I do not find any merit in this application to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed. .