Judgment :- (Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore, to give opportunity to the revision petitioner and hear his protest petition dated 28.9.2006 in C.M.P.No.6142 of 2006 in R.C.S.No.104 of 2006 and to set aside the observation made by the learned Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore dated 28.9.2006 in C.M.P.No.6142 of 2006 made in R.C.S.No.104 of 2006.) Mr. A. Saravanan, Government Advocate (criminal side) takes notice for the respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his protest petition, filed after the receipt of Referred Charge-sheet, was not taken on file and decided on merits by the trial Court, which appears to be well acceptable. 3. Upon the complaint given by the revision petitioner/defacto-complainant, a case came to be registered on the file of the respondent Police under Sections 408 and 409 IPC in Cr.No.46 of 2004. It seems, the respondent police, after investigation, felt no case has been made out and referred the complaint as ‘mistake of fact’, as reported by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side), serving the RCS also to the petitioner/defacto-complainant. Upon receipt of the RCS, the petitioner filed a petition, protesting the same, seeking enquiry, which was not taken on file by the trial Court, thereby giving grievance to the petitioner, resulting this revision petition. 4. Heard Mr. P. Suresh, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. A. Saravanan, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side). 5. In Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police And Another ( AIR 1985 SC 1285 ) the Honourable Apex Court has held, in paragraph No.4 as follows: “There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer in charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of S.173 (Cr.P.C.), the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub sec.(2)(i) of S.173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.” 6. This being the position, settled by the Apex Court, refusal of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore to entertain the protest application filed by the petitioner/defacto-complainant is improper and against law. Hence, the criminal revision case is allowed and the Judicial Magistrate No.I Coimbatore is directed to take the protest application filed by the petitioner/defacto-complainant on file and after affording opportunity to the parties, dispose the case on merits and in accordance with law.