JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The police submitted final report before the learned Magistrate, who issued notice to the complainant- petitioner. A notice was served on Singaram who was treated by the Magistrate to be the member of a family of the complainant-petitioner and since the petitioner did not . appear before the learned Magistrate the FR was accepted. 3. Affidavit have been filed to the effect that Singaram on whom the notice is stated to have been served is not the family member of the petitioner. There is no rebuttal in his regard. It, therefore seems that the notice was not properly served on the complainant-petitioner and as such F.R. was accepted in his absence. The interest of justice requires that petitioner should be given liberty to make a protest against the F.R. 4. Accordingly, to secure the ends of justice the order dated 28.11.98 passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate, Bansoth is set-aside and the petitioner is given liberty to file protest petition it he so desires before the learned Magistrate within two weeks from today. If the protest petition, it so filed, learned Magistrate shall consider it according to law and pass necessary orders. 5. The Misc. petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed with directions *******