Judgment :- 1. V.P.Kuppurao, a Retired Police Inspector, preferred a complaint against one Natarajan, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, before the Virinchipuram Police and the respondent registered a case under Sections 221 and 506 (i) IPC, r/w 200 and 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and Section 3(2)(IV) of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, in FIR No.122/09 and submitted it before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. 2. The first respondent / Police, after investigation, filed a report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., referring the case as 'mistake of fact'. Accepting the report filed by the Police, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, closed the case as 'mistake of fact'. In the order, it has been mentioned that the report of the Police, as to the inability of the Police to identify the witnesses and the consequent, closing of the case as mistake of fact, has to be accepted. 3. The defacto complainant filed Objection Petition in respect of RCS notice, dated 12.04.2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate ordered recording of the Objections (but ordered no further action) with the following two observations:- (i) The complainant has not explained in what way he is aggrieved by the action of the Police in referring the case as mistake of fact. (ii) As per the Circular of the High Court, dated 23.05.2005, and ROC No.1062/03/F1 only the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court has got jurisdiction to enquire into the offences against the Police Officers and therefore, the complainant has to seek further remedy only before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. 3.1. These orders are under challenge in Criminal Revision Petition No.410 of 2012. 4. In respect of the complaint filed against Pattabi and others, the same order of referring the case as mistake of fact and ordering no further action in respect of Protest Petition, filed by the complainant, came to be passed as against which, Criminal Revision Case No.411 of 2012 has been filed. 5. As the common question of law and fact arises in both the cases, common order is being pronounced in these two Criminal Revision Cases. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that neither the learned Judicial Magistrate has chosen to entertain the Protest Petition nor has chosen to return the petition asking the petitioner to present the petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that neither the learned Judicial Magistrate has chosen to entertain the Protest Petition nor has chosen to return the petition asking the petitioner to present the petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is further pointed out that when the learned Judicial Magistrate relied upon the Circular issued by the High Court, directing that cases against Police Officers should be dealt with only by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, in all fairness, he should have returned the petition with liberty to the petitioner to present the same before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has chosen to record the objections, but ordered no further action. 6.1. It is further pointed out that when the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the matter should be entertained only by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he ought not to have accepted the report of the Police, seeking closure of the case as mistake of fact. This according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, does not stand to any reason and the orders are liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Circular, issued by the High Court, has been held to be invalid and unenforceable by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Karuppa Gounder v. D.Sekar, reported in 2012 (3) CTC 379 , and therefore, the order of the Magistrate observing that Chief Judicial Magistrate alone has got jurisdiction in respect of complaint against Police Officers is illegal. 6.2. The relevant observation in the judgment, cited supra, reads as follows:-"Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 11, 12, 14, 190 & 200-Judicial Magistrates are competent to entertain private complaints against the Police Officials. Circular dated 22.5.2003 conferring power upon Chief Judicial Magistrate declared as invalid and unenforceable as being contrary to order in force." 7. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner squarely applies to the facts of these cases. In the said judgment, it has been held that neither the Chief Judicial Magistrate nor the High Court can deprive the Magistrates of the power vested in them by the Criminal Procedure Code, by means of Circular or order. As per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrates are competent to entertain private complaints, against the Police Officials. As per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrates are competent to entertain private complaints, against the Police Officials. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, giving an observation that it is only the Chief Judicial Magistrate who can entertain the complaint against the Police Officers, are liable to be set-aside. 8. Contending that when the final report is filed by the police and a protest petition is filed by the complainant, then the order passed accepting the final report without considering the protest petition would be illegal, the decision reported in 2005 (2) Crimes (HC) 219 (Brij Mohan Aggarwal, Advocate vs. State of U.P.), is relied upon. This objection is well founded. 9. So far as this case is concerned, even though notice has been issued to the informant opportunity of hearing has been deprived and the objection has been merely recorded without being considered. Therefore, the order is liable to be set-aside. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the Objection Petition filed in both the cases and to pass orders in accordance with law.