JUDGMENT 1. This was a Rule calling on the Deputy Commissioner of Jalpaiguri to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside or why such other order should not be pissed as to this Court may seem fit. The Petitioner laid a complaint against the Sub Inspector of Police charging him with various offences of wrongful confinement, extortion, mischief, etc., on which the Magistrate who took cognisance of the case made it over to Babu C.R. Mukerjee, a Magistrate holding first class powers, to make a local enquiry and then dispose of the case. Babu C.R. Mukerjee thereafter held a local enquiry, examined 17 prosecution witnesses and then passed an order dismissing the complaint under sec. 203, Cr. P.C., and directing under sec. 476 of that Code the prosecution of the Petitioner for an offence under sec. 211, I.P.C. Against that order, the Petitioner moved this Court and a Rule was accordingly issued in the terms mentioned above. 2. We notice that the order of the Magistrate before whom the complaint was laid was bad in directing Babu C.R. Mukerjee to hold a local enquiry inasmuch as the Code of Criminal Procedure does not make any provision for such a course by a Magistrate to whom a case is made over for disposal. It is quite clear that the provisions of sec. 202, Cr. P.C., have been misunderstood and consequently misapplied. The attention of the Magistrates to irregularities of this sort has, on many previous occasions, been drawn by this Court but it seems that Magistrates yet indulge in mistakes of this kind which have more or less become common in the practice of law of Criminal Procedure in the mofussil. 3. The Petitioners in this case complain that the order of Babu C.R. Mukerjee is wrong for many reasons. We have no desire to discuss the errors of that Magistrate in coming to the conclusion at which he arrived because we apprehend that it is possible that by any expression of opinion as regards the errors in the judgment we may be causing some apprehension in the mind of the Magistrate who has to try this case as to what our own inclinations are on the general merits of the case. We are satisfied that the order of the Magistrate is not proper. The case against the Sub-Inspector may or may not be true. We are satisfied that the order of the Magistrate is not proper. The case against the Sub-Inspector may or may not be true. That will rest on the evidence that may be produced at the trial. All that we are concerned with at the present stage is to see whether the evidence produced before the Magistrate is or is not sufficiently strong to warrant the issue of process against the accused for his trial. The Magistrate's order which is a lengthy one leads us to hold that this is not a case in which an order under sec. 203 dismissing the complaint could be properly passed. 4. We, therefore, make the Rule absolute and direct the Magistrate to hold a further enquiry into this case according to law. The prosecution of the Petitioner under sec. 211 is consequently set aside. We have no doubt that the learned Deputy Commissioner will consider the desirability of this case being heard by some Magistrate other than Babu C.R. Mukerjee. The case is of some importance affecting the conduct of a public servant against whom very serious charges are laid by a citizen living in his jurisdiction. While the public servant is entitled to every protection against false charges being laid against him, a citizen living within the jurisdiction of that public servant is equally entitled to every protection from his aggressions or oppressive acts. The Deputy Commissioner may consider perhaps the desirability of trying the case himself if his work permits him sufficient leisure to do so. We give no direction in this matter. A request has been made by the Petitioner that the case may be directed to be tried by the Deputy Commissioner. We leave it to the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner who will excercise it as the circumstances of the case may require.