JUDGMENT Harington and Brett, JJ. - In this case a Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why the order of the Deputy Magistrate, dated the 17th December 1902, dismissing the complaint of the Petitioner u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directing his prosecution u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code, should j not be set aside, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to make over the case for preliminary inquiry to the Sub-Deputy Magistrate without first examining the complainant; that the proceedings taken before the Sub-Deputy Magistrate and the Bench of Honorary Magistrates were without jurisdiction and that the Deputy Magistrate himself not having made a legal inquiry into the complaint had no jurisdiction to dismiss the case or pass the order for the prosecution of the Petitioner u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that a complaint was made to the Sub-divisional Magistrate and that he without examining the complainant sent the petition of complaint to the police for inquiry. On receipt of the police report, he directed the Sub-Deputy Magistrate to make a preliminary inquiry into the case and on receipt of the report of the Sub-Deputy Magistrate, he, not being satisfied with it, cross-examined the complainant and some of his witnesses, examined three witnesses sent up by the police and then proceeded to dispose of the case u/s 203, dismissing the complaint and directing the prosecution of the complainant u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code. In his explanation the Magistrate has stated that he directed the investigation by the police u/s 156, Clause (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that he ordered the Sub-Deputy Magistrate to hold the preliminary inquiry u/s 159 of the same Code and he appears to be of opinion that his own cross-examination of the complainant on the depositions recorded by the Sub-Deputy Magistrate was a sufficient compliance with the law to enable him to deal with the case u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. We are unable to accept this view as correct. 3. We are unable to accept this view as correct. Section 203 provides that "the Magistrate before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred, may dismiss the complaint if, after examining the complainant and considering the result of the investigation (if any) made u/s 202, there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding." In this case there has been no previous local investigation ordered u/s 202 and there has been no examination of the complainant by the Magistrate, who has dismissed the case, such as is contemplated by Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. We are unable therefore to hold that the Magistrate on the materials before him had jurisdiction to deal with the case, or to dismiss it u/s 203, On receipt of the report of the preliminary inquiry u/s 159, he should have proceeded to deal with the case in the same way as he would have dealt with it on receipt of a report from a Police officer. He has not done so, but he has dealt with the case as if he had proceeded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without complying with the requirements of the law as laid down in these suctions. We think therefore that he had no jurisdiction to pass an order u/s 203 and we accordingly make the Rule absolute and set aside the order passed u/s 203 as well a the order directing the prosecution of the Petitioner u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. If the Magistrate wishes to take any further steps in the matter, he should proceed in accordance with law.