RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application is filed by Mohd. Ahmad alias Lallu with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 14 of 1987 State v. Mohd. Ahmad alias Lallu under Section 419, 420 and 468 I. P. C. P. S. Maudaha, District Hamirpur and the impugned order dated 24. 12. 1986 passed by learned C. J. M. Hamirpur by which the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial after rejecting the final report. ( 2 ) IN this case notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2 Masood Ahmad on 14. 4. 1987. It has been served upon him on 26. 12. 2004 after service of the notice also the opp. party No. 2 has not turned up before this Court and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opp. party no. 2 and on behalf of the State. The matter is too old. It is not proper to wait further for any response from the side of opp. party No. 2. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri S. A. Shah learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution version a first information report was lodged by the opp. party no. 2 Under Section 419, 420 and 468 I. P. C. at P. S. Maudaha District Hamirpur in case No. 299 of 1985 on 24. 10. 1985. Thereafter the matter was investigated by the police who submitted the final report in favour of the applicant. The learned Magistrate has issued the notice to the opp. party No. 2 for filing the objections, if any, against that final report. Thereafter opp. party No. 2 filed a protest application against the final report. After considering the protest report the learned magistrate has rejected the final report and taken cognizance against the applicant for the offences punishable Under Section 419, 420 and 468 I. P. C. ( 5 ) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the criminal proceedings are barred by Section 195 Cr. P. C. and it has been clearly mentioned by the investigating Officer in the Final Report. P. C. and it has been clearly mentioned by the investigating Officer in the Final Report. But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not considered the grounds given in the Final Report and the learned Magistrate has not taken the cognizance on the basis of the case diary the cognizance has been taken only on the basis of the protest application. The impugned order dated 24. 12. 1986 is illegal because the learned C. J. M. has not adopted a proper procedure for taking the cognizance against the applicant. It is further contended that the impugned order is not reasoned order and learned Magistrate has not recorded any finding after considering the allegations made against the applicant and learned Magistrate has not considered the police report at all. ( 6 ) IN such circumstances it was proper for the learned Magistrate to treat the protest application as a complaint but the same was not treated as a complaint. It is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitted that the learned C. J. M. has taken the cognizance after considering the protest application Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. ( 7 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. and from the perusal of the impugned order dated 24. 12. 1986 it appears that the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance only on the basis of the protest application. The learned Magistrate has not considered the police report and also not recorded any finding to show that on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating officer prima facie any offence is made out against the applicant. It also appears that the learned magistrate has taken the cognizance without following the proper procedure because, in case a final report is submitted in the court, the learned Magistrate is under obligation to consider, first the final report and record the finding in respect of the investigation done by the I. O. In case on the basis of the material collected by the I. O. any offence, prima facie is made out, the cognizance maybe taken on the police report alone. If the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the investigation was not fairly done, in such circumstance, such finding must be recorded by the learned Magistrate, thereafter, the matter may be remitted to the investigating agency for doing the further investigation or the protest application filed by the first informant may be treated as a complaint and by adopting the procedure prescribed for a complaint case, the learned Magistrate may take cognizance, in the present case the learned Magistrate has not adopted any procedure as discussed above. He has taken cognizance only on the basis of the protest application but the same was not treated as complaint and he has not adopted a prescribed procedure, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and is hereby set aside. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the learned c. J. M. Hamirpur shall pass a fresh reasoned order on the police report (final report) after considering the material collected by the I. O. during investigation and grounds of submitting the final report. Office is directed to communicate this order to Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur within two weeks. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY with this direction this application is finally disposed of. . .