Honble GODARA, J.–This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court has been moved by the complainant-petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.10.95 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also the learned P.P. for the State. (3). Without entering into the merits of the case, suffice it to observe that the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the accused Manish Dhoot for alleged commission of offences under Sections 420/406 IPC before the Chief Judi- cial Magistrate, Jodhpur who, in turn, forwarded the same in exercise of powers under Section 156(1), Cr.P.C., for registration and investigation of a case to the Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur whereat an F.I.R. was registered and, consequent upon on completion of investigation. The F.R. (negative) was submitted before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. Informed about it, the peti- tioner filed a protest petition against the acceptance of the F.R. submitted by the police and it was on 24.10.94 that the court ordered that the protest petition be trea- ted as a complaint and the complainant was called upon to adduce evidence in support of the allegations of the complaint and, lastly, on 4.10.95 when neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared before the court consequently, the trial court dismissed the protest petition and, instead, accepted the F.R. and hence this petition. (4). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier proceedings between 24.10.94 to at 4 to 4.30 no effective hearing was made and on 4.10.95, at 12 noon itself, without further waiting for the complainant and his witnesses as well as his counsel, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his impugned order, accepted the F.R. The impugned order ex-facie shows that the allegations of the protest petition against acceptance of the F.R. submitted by the police were not considered by way of application of judicial mind by the trial court nor the investigation record was examined and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, straight away observed that on perusal of F.R., the same is hereby accepted and, consequently, the protest petition stands dismissed. There is total absence of application of mind since the relevant material and documents having bearing upon the conclusion of the investigation in regard to allegations of the complaint under investigation by way of registration of F.I.R. were not considered and, besides, the allegations of protest petition also went unnoticed and without consideration and application of mind. Besides, the complainant right from beginning to end was willing and ready to produce evidence in support of his protest petition already ordered to be treated as a criminal complaint after the F.R. was filed but, however, the Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to examine the complainant himself and, more important on 4.10.95 itself, the petitioner appeared before the trial court at 12.05 P.M. on the same day and filed an application with a prayer that the impugned order of acceptance of F.R. and dismissal of the protest petition be recalled but the same did not find favour with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and, resultantly, the impugned order, in the aforesaid circumstances, has resulted in occasioning a failure to justice and, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to adduce evidence in support of the allegations of his complaint so filed by way of protest petition before the trial court. (5). On consideration of these contentions and after hearing the learned P.P. and after going through the impugned order and so also having given a considerate throught to it, there is no escape from concluding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to examine the complainant in respect of the allegations of his protest petition which was so treated as a complaint and on 4.10.95 itself, just after the impugned order was passed, the complainant appeared before the same court but even then the impugned order was not recalled nor was he examined and, in these circumstances, the impugned order has resulted in occasioning a failure to justice to the petitioner which warrants interference with the same. (6). Resultantly, this petition being well merited is hereby accepted and the impugned order dated 5.10.95 is hereby set aside restoring the position in regard to the F.R. and the protest petition and the complaint lodged by the complainant-petitioner as existing before the order dated 4.10.95 was passed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.2.98 without fail. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.2.98 without fail. (7). Let a copy of this order be sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, for information and necessary action.