Judgment Harbans Lal, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, seeks quashing of the order dated 05.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur camp Kaman in Sessions Case No. 89/2004 (6/05). 2. Complainant non-petitioner No. 2 Raghunath lodged a report at Police Station Kama at 5.00 p.m. On 20.08.1999 with the allegation that the petitioner committed rape with Mst. Manju w/o Gyarsi in the Bajra crop in the field adjacent to the well where she had gone to fetch water. After investigation the police submitted negative final report No. 117/1999 on 31.08.1999. Dis-satisfied with the investigation made by the police, the complainant moved a protest petition before the Court where-upon statements under Sections 200 and 202, CrPC, were recorded and after hearing the complainant and upon a perusal of the materials on record, the protest petition was dismissed and final report was accepted as indicated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant moved a Criminal Revision Petition being No. 578/2000 in this Court which was remitted to the learned Court below vide order dated 210.2004 for hearing and decision as per law. The learned Court below after hearing the learned Counsel for complainant ex parte in the absence of the petitioner accused allowed the revision petition vide order dated 05.04.2005 and quashed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and directed that cognizance be taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 376/511, 354 and 379, IPC. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the out-set that the parties have now arrived at a compromise. He has further submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate was based on proper appreciation of the materials on records and there was no material to take cognizance against the petitioner for the alleged offences. The learned Court below has committed grave illegality in directing the Magistrate to take cognizance against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the complainant has fairly concedes that the parties have come to terms and if the order dated 05.04.2005 is quashed, he has no objection. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order of the learned Magistrate. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have perused the compromise filed in this Court which is duly signed by complainant Raghunath, victim Mst. Manju and their learned Counsel Mr. Pradeep Mathur. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order of the learned Magistrate. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have perused the compromise filed in this Court which is duly signed by complainant Raghunath, victim Mst. Manju and their learned Counsel Mr. Pradeep Mathur. I have also perused the record which has been sent for from the learned Courts below for perusal. 5. A perusal of the order dated 03.08.2000 reveals that it is detailed and well considered. Cogent reasons have been given for rejecting the protest petition and accepting the negative final report submitted by the police. Learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly found that the story as put forth by the complainant is not convincing and reliable. But the learned Court below has set aside the order without properly appreciating the materials on record and appears to have taken a superficial view of the matter. The impugned order, therefore, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur camp Kaman is hereby set aside and quashed and the order dated 03.08.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaman rejecting the protest petition and accepting the final report is confirmed.