ORDER 1. The question that arises for consideration in this contempt proceeding is whether the respondent-police authorities, particularly the Director General of Police ("DGP") of Madhya Pradesh, have faithfully complied with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2024 passed in W.P. (Criminal) No. 350/2023. The part of the aforesaid order, which is alleged to have been willfully and deliberately breached, reads as follows: "20. Consequently, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, especially when the private respondents have not been heard in that regard, we dispose of these Writ Petitions with the following directions: (i) The Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh is directed to constitute an SIT comprising of: (a) An Officer in the rank of Inspector General of Police (as Head of SIT); (b) An Officer in the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police; (c) Another Officer in the rank of Superintendent or Additional Superintendent of Police - as members. xx xx xx 2. This order was further clarified/modified on 27.09.2024 to the following effect: "1. Heard learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the applicants. 2. The constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT) by the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, in compliance of our order dated 06.08.2024, is approved. 3. Since there is no post of Senior Superintendent of Police in the Madhya Pradesh cadre, inclusion of an Officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police in the SIT, is allowed. 4. Para 20(i)(b) of the order dated 06.08.2024 is clarified/modified to the aforesaid extent. 5. MA No.1958/2024 stands disposed of accordingly. 6. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of." 3. The only allegation in the contempt petition is that the DGP did not constitute SIT in terms of the above directions issued by this Court. Inter alia, it is alleged that an officer in the rank of Assistant Inspector General of Police was made the In-charge of the SIT. 4. However, Shri K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh has handed over a copy of the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the DGP, Madhya Pradesh. Inter alia, it is alleged that an officer in the rank of Assistant Inspector General of Police was made the In-charge of the SIT. 4. However, Shri K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh has handed over a copy of the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the DGP, Madhya Pradesh. We find from this order that the SIT as constituted, was comprising:(i) Abhay Singh, Inspector General of Police, Bhopal Rural Zone (Chairman) (ii) Mayank Awashi, Superintendent of Police, District Sehore (Member), and (iii) Anurag Sujania, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Bhopal (Member). 5. We are informed that all three officers belong to other than the State of Madhya Pradesh, though they are serving in the Madhya Pradesh cadre. We, thus, find that the directions contained in paragraph 20(i) have not been violated by the DGP. 6. Faced with this, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners submits that the SIT has submitted a casual report, recommending cancellation of the FIR and closure of the criminal case. It is not in dispute that the said report has been submitted to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar. It goes without saying that the petitioner has a right in law to submit an appropriate protest petition against the said report. It is pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the said Court has already issued notice to the complainant to enable him to submit the protest petition. 7. Be that as it may and as an abundant precaution, we clarify and direct that the petitioner/intervenor, who have approached this Court as well as the complainant, all shall have locus to submit their protest petitions before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Any such objection/protest petitions will be filed within four weeks, whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider these objections in accordance with law. The acceptance or rejection of the issues that may be raised in the protest petition(s), shall be followed by a reasoned order. 8. Needless to say, the party aggrieved by such reasoned order shall be entitled to avail its further remedy as per law. 9. The Contempt Petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.