C. A. RAHIM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 9-9-1992 passed by the A. C. J. M. III Court, Muzaffar Nagar summoning the revisionst under Section 364, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE point that has been canvased by the learned counsel is that when the learned Magistrate did not accept the final report whereupon a protest petition was filed by the complainant along with the affidavits of the witnesses the second complaint filed by the said complainant is barred under rules of estoppel. A criminal case was instituted by one Sajjad Hussain against the revisionist which ended in final report. A protest petition was lodged by the said complainant and after considering the merits of the case learned Magistrate by an order dated 23-10-1991 rejected the protest petition and accepted the final report. It has been stated that no revision was filed against the said order. Thereafter the said Sajjad Husain filed one petition of complaint who was examined under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and also examined six witnesses on his behalf. Learned Magistrate after considering all the circumstances referred before him summoned the accused-revisionist under Section 365, I. P. C. on 9-9-1992. He has also considered the order dated 23-10-1991 and was of the opinion that acceptance of final report is no bar in taking cognizance against the accused-revisionist on a second complaint filed by the said complainant. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 1, the complainant, has submitted that acceptance of final report bears no effect in taking cognizance thereafter. He has also submitted that protest petition filed by the said complainant should not be treated as a petition of complaint as the same was filed with certain allegations against the investigating agency. He has referred a decision reported in 1967 Cri LJ 111 : (AIR 1967 Patna 473) (State of Bihar v. Sakal Deep Singh) wherein it has been held that protest petition should not be treated as petition of complaint as envisaged under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and if cognizance is taken by rejecting the final report the cognizance would be under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. and the procedure of trial to be followed should be along with the procedure for disposal of the cases on police report. P. C. and if cognizance is taken by rejecting the final report the cognizance would be under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. and the procedure of trial to be followed should be along with the procedure for disposal of the cases on police report. ( 4 ) ESSENTIAL difference between the petition of complaint and information to the police is that a Magistrate acts on a petition of complaint as per allegation of the complainant but in the case of information to the police he is to depend on the report filed by the investigating agency be it a charge-sheet or a final report, though he is free to act according to the materials available with the police report submitted under Section 173, Cr. P. C. In the case of petition of complaint the learned Magistrate is to decide whether he will accede to the prayer or not. If he does not then he shall record his reasons under Section 202 (i), Cr. P. C. and may either inquire the case himself or direct an inquiry or investigation or dismiss the complaint under Section 203, Cr. P. C. But if on submission of the final report a protest petition is filed it simply serves the purpose of drawing the attention of the learned Magistrate to the materials in the case diary inviting a careful scrutiny, thereby the case does not become a complaint case because of the protest petition. In Qasim v. State of U. P. , reported in 1984 All Cri C 362 : (1984 Cri LJ 1677) it has been held that a protest petition filed after the submission of the final report does not amount to a private complaint. Cognizance held to be taken under Section 190 (i) (b), Cr. P. C. Procedure of police case is to be followed so if the Magistrate rejects the final report and takes cognizance on the protest petition without taking any procedure under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. that also means that the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance on complaint but on police report under Section 190 (i) (b), Cr. P. C. But in the instant case the learned Magistrate not only accepted the final report but rejected the protest petition. So following the same principle the said rejection does not amount to dismissal of the petition of complaint under Section 203, Cr. P. C. But in the instant case the learned Magistrate not only accepted the final report but rejected the protest petition. So following the same principle the said rejection does not amount to dismissal of the petition of complaint under Section 203, Cr. P. C. but simply a refusal to accede to the prayer of the complainant to take cognizance on the police report. ( 5 ) IN the case of Muni Lal Thakur v. Nawal Kishore Thakur reported in 1985 Cri LJ 437 (Patna) it has been held that if the Magistrate has accepted the final report even then he can take cognizance upon a complaint or protest petition on the same or similar allegation of facts. Since there was no application of mind on behalf of the learned Magistrate in this case as required under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has refused to take cognizance under Section 190 (i) (a), Cr. P. C. while rejecting the protest petition. Now it is clear that the learned Magistrate is within his jurisdiction to consider a petition of complaint along with the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses and to proceed with the matter after taking cognizance under Section 190 (i) (a), Cr. P. C. and the said cognizance is not bad in law. ( 6 ) AS regards the merit of the case the revisional Court has got limited jurisdiction in reversing the order of the lower Court which has been arrived at after considering as many as six witnesses and the evidence of the complainant along with the materials that were placed before the Magistrate and on which process was issued against the accused-revisionist. In a decision reported in 1988 All Cri R 33 : (1988 All LJ 1443) it has been decided that the finding of fact of the learned trial Court is binding on the revisional Court unless there is failure of justice. In the decision reported in 1988 All Cri R 378 : (1988 Cri LJ NOC 36) it has been held that the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to upset the finding of the learned Magistrate with the plea that another version of fact is possible. In the decision reported in 1988 All Cri R 378 : (1988 Cri LJ NOC 36) it has been held that the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to upset the finding of the learned Magistrate with the plea that another version of fact is possible. In a case reported in 1990 ACC page 361 (sic) it has been held that whether prima facie case is made out from the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate is matter of discretion of the learned Magistrate and need not be disturbed in revision. ( 7 ) AFTER going through the materials placed before me I do not find that the learned Magistrate has acted arbitrarily in calling upon the accused persons to stand trial on the basis of the evidence and other materials placed before him. I do not think that acceptance of the final report and rejection of the protest petition along with the affidavits of the two witnesses does operate any bar to reconsider the matter when sufficient materials was produced before him, to issue process against the accused persons. ( 8 ) SINCE the revision is devoid of any merit the same is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. Revision dismissed. .