Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.p.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 420 of 2011 (State Vs. Rajendrabhan Singh and others), Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Kanpur Nagar by which he has rejected the final report submitted in the matter on the protest petition filed by the opposite party no. 2 and taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act allegedly committed by the applicants and summoned them to face trial of the aforementioned offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that after the final report had been submitted in the matter twice, the opposite party no. 2 filed a protest petition along with her affidavit and the affidavits of other witnesses and the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. by placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavits of the opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses filed along with the protest petition without following the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. and hence the impugned order is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained and is liable to set aside. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Pakhando and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2002-JIC-1-104,2001-ACRR-3-2541. 4. I have gone through the decision relied upon by the applicants. The Division Bench placing reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court has laid down that where the Magistrate receives final report, four courses are open to them him and he may adopt any one of them as the facts and circumstances of the case may require. It is well settled that before accepting or rejecting the final report, the informant has to be heard and he must be given an opportunity of hearing. It is well settled that before accepting or rejecting the final report, the informant has to be heard and he must be given an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the informant, the Magistrate may agree with the conclusions of the I.O. and accept the report or he may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and issue process straightaway to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency when he finds that there is sufficient grounds to proceed. Thirdly, the Magistrate may order further investigation when it is found that investigation was made in a perfunctory manner. Lastly, the Magistrate may without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued. Therefore, the legal position is very clear on the point involved in this revision. 5. After receipt of the final report and filing of the protest petition, learned Magistrate was required to treat the protest petition as a complaint and record the statement of the informant under Section 200 Cr.P.C and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he was required to decide to issue process against the accused provided he found sufficient grounds. In the instant case, the informant filed protest petition along with his own affidavit and affidavits of other witnesses. His statement was not recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and no enquiry was conducted under section 202 Cr.P.C. Consequently, I hold that the learned Magistrate committed illegality in not following the correct procedure after receipt of the final report and he was not justified in summoning the accused to face trial. Therefore, the order impugned in this application is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the application succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 420 of 2011 (State Vs. Rajendrabhan Singh and others) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass afresh order in the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. _____________