JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Revision under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of Order dated 18th of November, 2015 passed by the learned Munsiff, Samba in File No. 137-A/Misc titled ‘Joginder Singh v. Balbir Singh & anr’ by virtue of which the original complaint as well as the protest petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case on hand are that the petitioner had preferred an application/complaint before the learned trial court on 18th of June, 2014 for invoking the powers under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and had sought the registration of the FIR against the respondents for the commission of several offences. It is relevant to state that upon the receipt of the application above referred, the learned trial Court forwarded the same in original to Police Station, Vijaypur for investigation under law. It is further submitted that consequent upon the passing of order dated 18.06.2014, the application preferred by the petitioner was handed over to the concerned Police agency. But, despite the fact that some of the offences alleged in the application were cognizable, no FIR was registered despite clear directions by the learned trial Court. However, the concerned SHO by not registering FIR had shown a favourable bent in favour of the respondents and had not investigated the matter fairly and impartially. It is stated that a report was submitted before the trial court by the concerned SHO exonerating the respondents of all the offences alleged against them. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same preferred a protest petition, which came to be accepted by the learned trial court vide order dated 9th February, 2015 and as a consequence thereof the learned trial court directed the superior officer viz. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vijaypur to conduct a detailed inquiry in the matter in the light of the averments made in the original application preferred under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vijaypur to conduct a detailed inquiry in the matter in the light of the averments made in the original application preferred under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that despite the fact that the matter was referred to SDPO, Vijaypur by virtue of order dated 9th of February 2015, the concerned official did not proceed in the mater and no report was submitted by the concerned police official till the petitioner was constrained to prefer the separate application seeking the status report as well as initiation of contempt proceedings against SDPO, Vijapur. It is submitted that after the learned trial court initiated coercive process against the SDPO, the report of inquiry was submitted by the SDPO concerned. It is relevant to state here that against the aforesaid report also another protest petition was preferred by the petitioner before the learned trial Court. It is submitted that in the protest petition the petitioner categorically highlighted that SDPO Vijaypur has deliberately included the family members as well as relatives of the respondents. It is also quite relevant to state here that even the SDPO concerned did not register the FIR and there after proceeded ahead in terms of the mandate of law. However, the SDPO Vijaypur instead has entered into a roving inquiry in the title of the parties over the land measuring 3 kanals 14 marlas falling under Khasra No. 463 and that too by involving the revenue agency. It is further submitted that despite the fact that there were serious lapses, both factual as well as legal, in the enquiry, the learned trial court accepted the enquiry report by virtue of the order impugned and as such the same is assailed through the medium of the instant revision petition on the following amongst other grounds: (a) that the order impugned is against the facts and law and as such suffer from material irregularity and illegality as such the same is liable to be set aside. (b) that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that in terms of the mandate of law as it is settled proposition of law that on the receipt of information in respect of commission of cognizable offence, the police agency is duty bound to register FIR and thereafter proceed ahead with the enquiry, but the mandatory requirement of law has been flouted by the police agency in the instant case. (c) that at the time of accepting the first mentioned protest petition preferred by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate had recorded the statement of the petitioner as well as one of the witnesses and thereafter directed SDPO to conduct enquiry in the matter, but it is not forthcoming that under what circumstances the SDPO, Vijaypur felt the necessity of recording statement of the petitioner and his witness once again and that too by fabricating the statement made by the petitioner before the Magistrate; that the SDPO Vijaypur has deliberately attributed certain facts to the petitioner and his witness by exaggerating the statements already made by them before the court. (d) that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the learned trial court entrusted enquiry to SDPO, Vijaypur while exercising powers under Section 202 Cr.P.C, even on that count the SDPO Vijaypur had fallen in grave error of law by taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the accused and that too against the scope of enquiry held under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that in no case the officer entrusted with enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C can take into consideration the evidence adduced by the accused and as such the whole enquiry is vitiated on that score. (e) that the learned trial court has fallen in grave error while passing the order impugned as the learned trial court has not appreciated the facts involved in the instant case and has mechanically relied upon the report submitted by the SDPO concerned. (f) that neither the petitioner nor his witness had stated about lethal weapon used by the private respondent, even in the original complaint there was no mention of any lethal weapon used by the private respondents, but the SDPO concerned traversed beyond the complaint. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. (f) that neither the petitioner nor his witness had stated about lethal weapon used by the private respondent, even in the original complaint there was no mention of any lethal weapon used by the private respondents, but the SDPO concerned traversed beyond the complaint. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. From the perusal of documents attached in file ,it is evident that petitioner on 18.6.2014 filed a complaint against respondents for commission of offence u/s 323,341,447,504 and 506 RPC , before JMIC Samba; JMIC directed SHO Vijaypur to investigate the matter under law; the allegations levelled were that complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 3k 14m under kh.no 463 situated at Gurha Slathian Near Peer Baba Sathan; that accused wanted to dispossess him and his family from land, which is in possession of complainant; that on 14.6.2014 respondents /accused in morning suddenly along with some goonda elements entered into the land and caught hold the complainant and gave physical thrashing; and also extended threat of life and forced him and his family to dispossess from land; accused have no right over the land; that accused have defamed him in presence of his brother Kameswher Singh and Swarn Singh. 5. On 8/7/2014 petitioner filed a petition for calling status report before JMIC; Police filed status report and stated that after recording the statements of witnesses and Patwari, no case was made out as per allegation levelled in complaint; petitioner then filed protest petition before JMIC and court again on 9.2.2015 directed the SDPO Vijaypur for conducting the inquiry after recording the statement of complainant; no report was filed, this led to petitioner to file a petition for calling the status report; SDPO than filed a detailed report after got conducting demarcation of land; he in report stated that the allegations levelled in complaint that accused on 14.6.2014 entered into the land in question along with Gunda elements and thereafter caught hold of complainant and beaten him and extended threat of life to him and family, were not found correct. Report further disclosed that name of Joginder Singh has not been found in hospital at Vijaypur and so he was never treated in hospital; his name also does not exist in revenue record. Report further disclosed that name of Joginder Singh has not been found in hospital at Vijaypur and so he was never treated in hospital; his name also does not exist in revenue record. Petitioner thereafter again filed protest petition and for initiating the contempt proceeding against SDPO, Ajay Singh SHO, Naib Tehsidar Gurha Stathain, on account of making false documents and report. JMIC Vijaypur dismissed all the petition of Petitioner on 18.11.2015, which is impinged in this petition. 6. As per law, whenever a complaint is made before Magistrate; Magistrate has two options; one is called pre-cognizance stage and second is called post cognizance stage. If the Magistrate applies his mind for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 and the subsequent Sections of Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. then he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offences as made out in the complaint. But, if the Magistrate applies his mind not for the above purpose, but for taking action of some other kind, e.g. ordering investigation under Section 156 (3) C 7. In present case, as is evident from facts of case, it is evident that Magistrate has initially on 18.6.2014, when complaint was filed, did not take cognizance,but he exercised his power of pre cognizance stage and directed police impliedly u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate the matter. When SHO of Police Station Vijaypur filed report in the case, it came to know that there was no truthfulness in allegations in complaint; then complainant filed protest petition. The term ‘Protest Petition’ is nowhere defined under the Criminal Law in India but when the aggrieved person or complainant is not satisfied with the police report which is filed before the Concerned Court; the Complainant may move the petition against the negative police report which is called the Protest Petition and the same is treated as Complaint under Section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code. However the Protest Petition has to satisfy the essential ingredients of the Complaint before Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. When the Final Report is submitted by the Police and the Protest Petition is filed, the Magistrate has three options available to him. However the Protest Petition has to satisfy the essential ingredients of the Complaint before Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. When the Final Report is submitted by the Police and the Protest Petition is filed, the Magistrate has three options available to him. Firstly, he may accept the Final Report and may also reject the Protest Petition; Secondly, he may accept the Final Report but treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and proceed in accordance with Section 200 and 202 of the Code; Lastly, he may accept the Protest Petition and reject the Final Report and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code. The correct legal position is that the Magistrate is not bound to accept the final report submitted by the police officials. The Magistrate can disagree with that report and take cognizance even on the basis of police papers, if any submitted along with the police report. Hence, where the Protest Petition is filed, the procedure prescribed for trial of the complaint case has to be followed. 8. Magistrate in the case, after the protest petition filed, did not satisfy with report and took cognizance and directed SDPO to conduct inquiry, then definitely this inquiry was under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It means Magistrate postponed issuance of process. The purpose of this inquiry is to ascertain truth or falsehood of allegation leveled in the complaint; that is for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complaint or not. 9. When again report was filed by SDPO stating therein that there was no truthfulness in the allegations, then Magistrate accepted the report after hearing the complainant and filing of protest petition by him. This was done under section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 18.11.2015. Section 203 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Dismissal of complaint.- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing." 10. Bare perusal of this Section reveals that Magistrate has power to dismiss the complaint. The Magistrate has exercised his power vested in him under this section and found no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint. Bare perusal of this Section reveals that Magistrate has power to dismiss the complaint. The Magistrate has exercised his power vested in him under this section and found no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint. Perusal of order impugned, it is evident that Court has written a detailed order and plausible grounds for not proceeding with the complaint. 11. The argument of counsel for petitioner that Magistrate has adopted wrong procedure, is not tenable, because as discussed above Magistrate has exercised power vested in him under law and passed the order rightly under law. 12. Another argument of counsel for petitioner that court has not appreciated the facts involved in the instant case and has mechanically relied upon the report submitted by the SDPO concerned, is also not tenable because inquiry report of SDPO is well reasoned and based on facts collected during detailed inquiry. Last argument that there was no need of demarcation of land and matter was only pertaining to assault, is also not tenable because contents of complaint would reveal that complainant has categorically stated that he is owner in possession of land 3k 14m under Khasra no. 463 situated at Gurha Slathian near Peer Baba Sathan; that accused wanted to dispossess him and his family from land, which is in possession of complainant; that on 14.6.2014 respondents/accused in morning suddenly along with some goonda elements entered into the land and caught hold the complainant and gave physical thrashing. So main dispute was pertaining to land; and during inquiry conducted by SDPO, who after getting the land demarcated had come to definite conclusion that there was no name of complainant existing in revenue record and even there was no entry in hospital with regard to injury sustained by complainant as alleged. Inquiry officer found every allegation levelled in complaint as incorrect. It is not the case of petitioner that SDPO, Tehsildar and witnesses, whose statements were recorded during inquiry were biased and were carrying animosity against him. The report is based on public revenue documents, which cannot be termed as forged. 13. So order of Court below does not suffer from any infirmity of law and fact. The Magistrate has neither exceeded his jurisdiction nor has passed the order against any provision of law. So this petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.