Protest Petition is nowhere defined or worded in the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the same was the case in the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the law on “Protest Petitions” has been developed in accordance with principles of natural justice and fair play.
A Protest Petition is essentially an application filed by the Informant against the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer in the Court of Magistrate. It may be preferred upon notice issued to the informant by the Magistrate against the police report submitted by the investigating officer in favour of the accused, colloquially referred to as the “Final Report” or “Negative Report”.
Once a negative report is received by the Magistrate, he has four options open to him:
- Accept the report and drop the proceedings
- Direct Further Investigation
- Investigate himself or refer the investigation to another magistrate under Section 159 Cr.P.C./ 178 BNSS
- Take cognizance of the offence under Section 200, Cr.P.C., as private complaint when materials are sufficient in his opinion as if the complainant is prepared for that course
The Magistrate may even accept the final report; however, later, upon presentation of the protest petition, he may treat it as a complaint and proceed as per the procedure for a complaint under Section 223 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Magistrate cannot, of course, while rejecting the final report, take cognizance on the basis of an affidavit filed by the complainant. This method in law has been deprecated in a slew of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Reference may be made to Ram Autar and others vs. State of U.P. and Another [2016:AHC:170725].
However, treating the protest petition as a complaint and proceeding under Section 223 and 225 BNSS, the Magistrate must keep in mind that such a protest petition can only be treated as a complaint if it fulfills the requirements of a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C/ 2(1)(h) BNSS.
In a recent case of Jitendra Nath Singh Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P and another [2026:AHC-LKO:374], the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has clarified the legal position and settled the law on the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate while dealing with a protest petition. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, relying upon the judgment of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. [(2019) 8 SCC 27], set aside the order impugned in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by means of which the magistrate had treated the protest petition as a complaint, albeit without holding it up to the rigours of the requirements of the complaint as mandated under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.
Hence, the Magistrate is empowered to exercise his discretion, but not arbitrarily, and within the confines of reason and law. The Hon’ble Apex Court has crystallized the position of law on the power of Magistrate at this stage in the case of Zunaid vs. State of U.P. 2023 INSC 778, wherein it was held as follows:
11. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. It may be noted that even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report. As held by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma Vs. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others, as followed in B. Chandrika Vs. Santhosh and Another, a Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report. No doubt a Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be.
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Anr. 2024 INSC 834 has held that a second complaint on the same set of facts, after the acceptance of the final report and rejection of the protest petition, is maintainable. However, this is subject to conditions. These conditions are as follows:
(a) where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record, or
(b) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or
(c) The order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish, or
(d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings.
You can read the judgment in Application under 482 No. 10838 of 2025 here.