Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. These two cases have been heard together since they arise out of connected matters and this judgment will govern both of them. In both the cases Rajeev Nayan @ Rajeev Nayan Singh is the petitioner. Criminal Revision No. 282 of 1997 This application in revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) is directed against the order dated 17.3.1997 passed by Shri C.S. Pradhan Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah in Case No. 280/94 (arising out of Goh PS. Case No. 50/89) by which the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint-petition for the reasons stated in the aforesaid order. 2. It appears that the petitioner in this case had filed Complaint Case No. 397/1989 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya against Opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 27 of the Arms Act with respect to an occurrence alleged to have taken place at 3 p.m. on 17.8.1989. On the receipt of this complaint petition the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent it to Goh Police Station under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code on the basis of which the Police registered Goh P.S. Case No. 50/89 under Sections 144, 380 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and drew up the formal FIR. After completing investigation the Police submitted a final report false and recommended for action under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. The petitioner filed a protest petition against the submission of the final form by the Police. This protest petition was treated to be a complaint petition on which he was examined on solemn affirmation of 17.11.1994. After him the evidence of three witnesses was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 202 of the Code. However, by the impugned order the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint petition for the reasons recorded in it. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. Criminal Misc. No. 10666 of 1997 3. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code. It is directed against the order dated 21.2.1997 taking cognizance of the offence and the issuance of the process under Section 204(i) of the Code against the petitioner. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. Criminal Misc. No. 10666 of 1997 3. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code. It is directed against the order dated 21.2.1997 taking cognizance of the offence and the issuance of the process under Section 204(i) of the Code against the petitioner. It has also been passed by Shri C.S. Pradhan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah in Case No. 27/94 under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. From the petition filed in this criminal misc. case it would appear that it also arises out of Complaint Case No. 397/89 filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah Under various sections of the India Penal Code including Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is related to an occurrence having taken place at 3 p.m. on I 7.8.1980. The complaint petition was sent to Goh Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation. The Police registered Goh P.S. Case No. 50/89 and drew up the FIR. The Police, however, submitted final report false in this case against the present petitioner and recommended action under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against him. On 7.1.1991 the petitioner filed a protest petition in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and held an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code in course of which three witnesses were examined. In the course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code the petitioner and his three witnesses had fully supported the case of the prosecution as mentioned in the complaint petition. 4. It has been contended that though the Police had submitted final report false recommending for action under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner as long back as on 5.5.1990 no action against the present petitioner was taken while accepting the final report and the learned Court below proceeded to help the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code on the basis of the protest petition filed by the petitioner. Under, the aforesaid circumstances it is well settled in law that once inquiry under Section 202 of the Code was being held by the learned Magistrate even after the submission of the charge sheet by the Police he could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. Even if the statements made by the witnesses suffered from some minor contradictions it can not be said that the prosecution case was false warranting the prosecution under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. As a matter of fact no case against the petitioner under these two sections have been made out. It was, accordingly, prayed that the order dated 21.2.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Case No. 27/94 arising out of Goh P.S. Case No. 50/89 be quashed. 5. Before taking into consideration the various submissions made on behalf of the parties I would like to mention certain dates which are relevant. Since both these cases have been heard analogous help from the record of these two cases has been taken to ascertain the various relevant dates. It appears that the whole process was started by the petitioner by filing Complaint Case No. 397/89 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.8.1989. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent this complaint petition to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code for the investigation. The Police registered Goh P.S. Case No. 50/ 89 under Sections 144, 380 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and after completing the investigation final report No. 6/90 as false was submitted by the Police on 4.5.1990. On the same day as will appear from Annexure-3 of the Criminal Revision petition the Police submitted a separate petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking action under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner alleging therein that allegations made by him were false. Annexure-4 of Criminal Revision is the protest petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 7.1.1991 against the submission of the final form by the Police. This protest petition was treated to be a complaint petition and on its basis the present petitioner, who was the complainant, was examined on solemn affirmation on 17.11.1994. Annexure-4 of Criminal Revision is the protest petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 7.1.1991 against the submission of the final form by the Police. This protest petition was treated to be a complaint petition and on its basis the present petitioner, who was the complainant, was examined on solemn affirmation on 17.11.1994. The matter was sent for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and it was on 17.3.1997 that the inquiry report was submitted by the learned Magistrate Shri C.S. Pradhan by which he dismissed the complaint petition. In the meantime by his order dated 21.2.1997 he passed the order on the petition filed by the Police for action against the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. As will appear by this order he took cognizance against the petitioner on 21.2.1997 under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and ordered for the issue of summons against him. These facts as also the various dates mentioned above will have to be borne in mind at the time of disposing of these two cases. Criminal Revision No. 282 of 1997 6. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted in Criminal Revision No. 282/97 that from the impugned order itself it would appear that the complainant and the witnesses examined before the learned Magistrate had fully supported the case of the prosecution. However, on account of some minor contradictions about the time of the alleged occurrence the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint-petition. The evidence of the three witnesses has fully supported the case of the prosecution and there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to dismiss the complaint-petition. On these grounds it has been contended that the impugned order be quashed and the case be remitted back for further enquiry in accordance with law. 7. I have heard the parties in detail. I have also perused the impugned order. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the various submissions made on behalf of the parties. I will firstly like to state certain basic facts. It may be stated here that initially a complaint-petition was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He, however, sent the complaint-petition to the police for investigation in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) of the Code. Before doing so he did not examine the complainant (present petitioner) on solemn affirmation. It may be stated here that initially a complaint-petition was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He, however, sent the complaint-petition to the police for investigation in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) of the Code. Before doing so he did not examine the complainant (present petitioner) on solemn affirmation. It may also be mentioned in this connection that the police after completing the investigation has submitted final report as false and had recommended for action under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. In the meantime, it appears that the present petitioner had filed a protest petition on which he was examined on solemn affirmation. He produced three witnesses also before the learned Magistrate who were also examined by him. Also it may be mentioned that before examining the petitioner on solemn affirmation the learned Magistrate has not specifically mentioned in the order that he had accepted the final report false submitted by the police. 8. In this connection the first question that has to be considered is what is a protest petition and what is its legal force. The expression protest petition has not been defined in the Code. It is, however, well settled that whenever a final report is submitted or whenever the informant has reasonable ground to believe that a final report will be submitted by the police and he wishes to challenge that report the usual practice for him to file a protest petition before the Magistrate. Such protest petition may be either anticipatory or it may be filed after the submission of the final report. It is also well settled that a protest petition is regarded as a complaint-petition as defined in Section 1 (d) of the Code. In the result on the receipt of the protest petition the Magistrate should examine the complainant on solemn affirmation and should also either issue process against the accused under Section 202 of the Code placing him on trial, or for adequate reasons, on a judicial enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, if sufficient ground is not made out, the protest petition may be dismissed under Section 203 of the Code. This is how a protest petition has been treated to be a complaint-petition by the courts of India and on its receipt the informant/complainant is examined on solemn affirmation. This is how a protest petition has been treated to be a complaint-petition by the courts of India and on its receipt the informant/complainant is examined on solemn affirmation. In the present case also this has been done. It further appears that the Magistrate before whom this case was pending proceeded to hold an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code in the course of which three P.Ws. were examined and his order at the close of this enquiry was passed on 17,3.1997 dismissing the complaint-petition. From the aforesaid it would become clear that on 21.2.1997 when the impugned order in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was passed the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code was still pending as will appear from the impugned order passed in the Criminal Revision No. 282/97. The date given by the Magistrate after his scrutiny on the various pages of this order shows that this order was passed on 17.3.1997. 9. I will now proceed to consider the merits of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 17.3.1997 which has been challenged in Criminal Revision No. 282/97. The first ground taken by the learned Magistrate is that there is mistake or over typing in the alleged date of occurrence in the complaint-petition is 17.1.1989 and subsequently 8 has been typed over T showing that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the month of August and not in the month of January. I, however find that had the learned Magistrate closely perused the complaint-petition he would not have taken this ground for dismissing it. No doubt there is over typing so far as the month of the alleged date of occurrence is concerned on page No. 2 of the complaint-petition. However, if we look to paragraph No. 3 of the complaint- petition it has clearly been mentioned that the alleged occurrence had taken place at 3 p.m. on 17.8.1989. Hence there was no basis for the learned Magistrate to say that the complainant has not properly mentioned the alleged date of occurrence, I think he should have been more particular in noticing the date given in Paragraph 3 of the complaint-petition. The learned Magistrate has further mentioned that in the statement on solemn affirmation also the complainant has stated that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 17.8.1989. The learned Magistrate has further mentioned that in the statement on solemn affirmation also the complainant has stated that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 17.8.1989. Also in the impugned order the learned Magistrate has mentioned that the complainant has not stated in his solemn affirmation that the articles were looted away by the accused-persons or that the suitcase was taken away by them. On this ground the statement of the complainant has been disbelieved by the learned Magistrate. So far as P.W. 2. Suchit Singh is concerned it has been pointed out that in this evidence he had named only five accused-persons though actually there were seven accused in this case. Further it has been observed that this witness could not say who set fire to the house. The learned Magistrate has mentioned in the order that though witness No 3 has stated that 17.8.1989 was Thursday but he could not reply to a courts question about the date on the last Saturday. It is surprising to note on such ground he disbelieved the evidence of this witness. Further according to him when he asked this witness in the courts question as to who were the witnesses who saw setting fire to the house P.W. 3 stated that he does not remember their names. It may be mentioned here that even if a person is an eye witness to an alleged occurrence all that he can say is the names of the other witnesses who were present there. He can not say whether all those persons had witnessed a particular occurrence (since that could be a case of individual perception) and on this ground his evidence can not be disbelieved. 10. The true scope of Section 202 of the Code has come up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court from time to time. The leading case on this subject is the case of Smt. Nagawwa V/s. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi AIR 1976 SC 1947 . 10. The true scope of Section 202 of the Code has come up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court from time to time. The leading case on this subject is the case of Smt. Nagawwa V/s. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi AIR 1976 SC 1947 . In this decision the Honble Supreme Court has held that the scope of the enquiry under Seeuoa 202 of the Code is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint petition on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant before the Court for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out or not and also for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code can not be converted into a trial to decide whether the accused is guilty or not as has been held in the case of Smt. Nagawwa (supra). The object of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code is to see whether there is prima facie case for issue of the process against the accused as has been held in the case of Balraj Khanna and others V/s. Moti Ram. (1971) 3 SCC 399 AIR 1971 SC 1389 . 11. This question had come up for consideration before me in the case of Ram Prasad Singh V/s. Shri Uday Shankar Prasad, 2000 (2) BCCR 742. The law on this point is well settled as has been noticed in the various decisions mentioned in my judgment noted above. In the present case, however, I find that the learned Magistrate has minutely scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses examined before him before passing the impugned order dismissing the complaint-petition under Section 203 of the Code. It is well known that at this stage of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code the elaborate procedure for holding the trial can not be allowed at this stage since it is well known that in the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code the Magistrate concerned has simply to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. It has been submitted before me on behalf of the petitioner that three witnesses examined on his behalf had fully supported the case of the prosecution and there was hardly any discrepancy in their evidence. The learned Magistrate has tried to find certain discrepancy which do not exist and this he had done after trying to minutely scrutinise the evidence on record. It has been submitted before me that at this stage elaborate discussion on the merits of the evidence on record or close scrutiny thereof is not permitted under law which can wait for the final disposal of the trial of the case. At this stage the only thing to be found out is whether a prima facie case against the accused-persons has been made out or not. The learned Magistrate by entering into a minute examination of the evidence on record has transgressed his limits has probably forgotten that he is not holding the trial of the case but has imply to find out at this stage whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Since evidently on the basis of the complaint-petition, the statement on solemn affirmation and the evidence of three P.Ws. examined before the learned Magistrate it appears that the prosecution has been able to make out a prima facie case against the accused I feel that the learned Magistrate was wrong in dismissing the complaint-petition under Section 203 of the Code. For the reasons stated above the impugned order passed in Criminal Revision No. 282/97 is quashed and the Magistrate is directed to hold further enquiry under Section 398 of the Code. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. Cri. Misc. Case No. 10666 of 1997 12. So far as Criminal Misc. No. 10666 of 1997 is concerned the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.2.1997 passed by the learned Magistrate by which he has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a petition filed by the police on the conclusion of the investigation in Goh RS. Case No. 50/89. Case No. 50/89. In this connection it may be mentioned that the police had submitted final report false in this case on 4.5.1990 and through a separate letter also prayed on the same day for taking action against the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not clear from the order sheet as to whether the final report submitted by the Police was accepted by the learned Magistrate or not. However, it will appear that on 7.1.1991 a protest petition was filed before the learned Magistrate which was treated to be a complaint petition and on which the present petitioner was examined on solemn affirmation and enquiry under Section 202 of the Code was ordered in the matter in course of which three P.Ws. were examined. It appears that on the conclusion of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code the learned Magistrate by his order dated 17.3.1997 dismissed the complaint-petition. From this it would appear that till 17.3.1997 the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code was still pending and three P.Ws. were examined in support of the allegations made in the complaintpetition. It has seriously been argued before me on behalf of the petitioner that under the aforesaid circumstances no cognizance of the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against him could be taken inasmuch as on the date of the impugned order which was passed on 21.2.1997. The inquiry under Section 202 of the Code was still pending in the order to find out whether the allegations made by the petitioner were prima facie correct or not. Under these circumstances, it has been submitted that at this stage while the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code was still pending no cognizance against the petitioner could have been taken for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Code Indian Penal Code on the basis of a separate petition filed by the Police. I find that there is great force in this contention. Since the inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner was still pending before the Court it could not be said that he/gave false information to the learned Magistrate of the Police or that he preferred a false charge of the various offence with intent to cause injury to any body. Since the inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner was still pending before the Court it could not be said that he/gave false information to the learned Magistrate of the Police or that he preferred a false charge of the various offence with intent to cause injury to any body. Under the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate to say the least is premature and can not be sustained in the eyes of law. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. 13. In the result, both these applications are allowed and case are decided in favour of the petitioner, in the manner as indicated above.