IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46818 of 2007 1. Shoaib Ahmad, S/O Late Nawab Ali. 2. Shaukat Ali, S/O Shoaib Ahmad. 3. Shamim Akhtar @ Akbar Ali, S/O Late Abdul Rahman. 4. Nasruddin S/O Safar Ali. 5. Subhan Ali, S/O Amant Mian. All resident of Village- Ismailpur, P.S.-Gurua, District- Gaya. -----Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Abdul Majeed Khan, S/O Late Wali Mohmad Khan, resident of Village- Ismailpur, P.S. Gurua, District-Gaya. -----Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 23.01.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the opposite party no.2. The only ground on which interference is sought in exercise of Section 482 of Cr. P. C. is that after the police submitted final form in Gurua P.S. Case No. 49 of 2005 that the allegations are untrue, the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on a protest-cum-complaint petition after enquiry. The laws stands well settled that a police investigation and complaint case stand on different footing. One can not prejudice the other. After an investigation report is submitted, nothing prevents the aggrieved from preferring a protest-cum-complaint petition which the Magistrate is required to proceed in accordance with law after enquiry under the Cr. P.C.. No infirmity has been shown in the procedure adopted by the Magistrate to warrant interference. The application is dismissed. U.K. (Navin Sinha,J)