Shri Kant Tripathi,J.:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and Mr. K. K. Dwivedi for the respondent no.2 and perused the record. 2. In this case, the investigating officer submitted a final report. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, vide the order dated 5.9.2008, rejected the final report and took cognizance of the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 301, 307, 452, 323, 435 and 427 IPC. Against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, revision no. 308/2009 was filed in the court of Session, which was dismissed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Court no.10, Agra on 27.7.2010. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that against the final report, the respondent no.2 filed a protest petition. The Chief Judicial Magistrate considereed the final report and the protest petition and passed the order dated 15.11.2007 against which criminal revision no. 43/2008 was preferred, in which the revisional court quashed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the final report and the protest petition and pass a fresh order. The revisional court while remanding the matter observed that when there was no adequate materials it was open to the Magistrate to direct for further investigation or treat the protest petition as complaint but the learned Magistrate ignored the directions of the revisional court and passed the second order dated 5.9.2008 on altogether irrelevant grounds. Even in the order dated 5.9.2008 certain faults committed by the investigating officer have been indicated, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of directing for further investigation, took cognizance of the offences and rejected the final report. It was further submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has nowhere arrived at the conclusion that the materials collected during the investigation were sufficient to proceed with the matter and to summon the petitioners. Therefore, the summoning order has been passed on the basis of the evidences, which were extraneous materials. It was further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while disposing of the second revision (revision no. 308/2009) has also overlooked relevant aspects of the matter. 4. In regard to the police report, whether it is in the form of charge sheet or the final report, the power of the Magistrate is well settled. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the police. 308/2009) has also overlooked relevant aspects of the matter. 4. In regard to the police report, whether it is in the form of charge sheet or the final report, the power of the Magistrate is well settled. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the police. Whenever any police report is submitted, the Magistrate may agree with the report and accept the same. He may, in a given situation, disagree with the conclusion of the police and arrive at his own conclusion. In the matter of final report too, the Magistrate may disagree with the report and take cognizance of the offence, if he, after applying his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation, is of the view that there is sufficient material to summon the accused and proceed with the case. In other words, the Magistrate is competent to reject the final report and take cognizance of the offence if a prima facie case is made out against the accused from the materials collected during the investigation. In appropriate cases, the Magistrate, after disagreeing with the report, may direct for further investigation. These principles have been settled by the Apex Court in several cases and some of them are, Minu Kumari vs. State of Bihar [ (2006) 4 SCC 359 ], Popular Muthiah vs. State [ (2006) 7 SCC 296 ], Abhi Nandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra, [ AIR 1968 SC 117 ] and Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2004) 7 SCC 768 ]. 5. The law in regard to the protest petition is also well settled. If any protest petition is filed against the final report, the Magistrate may proceed to examine the matter on the basis of materials collected during the investigation and to see whether or not any case for taking cognizance of the offence is made out from the materials collected during the investigation. If a prima facie case is made out, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under section 190 (1) (b) of the Code and reject the final report. But if such materials do not make out any case for taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate may, in that situation, treat the protest petition as complaint. If any protest petition is treated as complaint, it should be dealt with in accordance with Chapter XV of CrPC. But if such materials do not make out any case for taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate may, in that situation, treat the protest petition as complaint. If any protest petition is treated as complaint, it should be dealt with in accordance with Chapter XV of CrPC. The third course, that is available to the Magistrate, is to direct for further investigation if available evidence has not been collected and witnesses have not been properly interrogated and examined. 6. In the present case. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has nowhere indicated in the order dated 5.9.2008 that he considered the materials collected during the investigation and those materials were sufficient to proceed with the case. There is also no indication that the materials collected during the investigation had made out a prima facie case for summoning the accused.The Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to have pointed out certain faults committed by the investigating officer, even then, he did not consider it proper to direct for further investigation. If the evidence collected during the investigation was not sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners and to summon them, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have treated the protest petition as complaint. It was also open to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to direct for further investigation in view of the fact that investigation was faulty and relevant evidence had not been collected. But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to observe these legal requirements. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra (Annexure no.6) as well as the order passed by the revisional court (Annexure no.7) can not be upheld. The writ petition is allowed. The aforesaid orders are quashed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.