Judgment 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner for further inquiry into a complaint which has been dismissed under S. 203, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner filed a petition of complaint on the 1-6-1963, before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar Chapra, against the only opposite party who, at the relevant time, was the officer-in-charge of Garkha police station, in the district of Saran. The petitioner is a resident of Mauza Rampur Pratappur which lies within the jurisdiction of Parsa police station, in the same district, and not under Garkha police station. 3. The complaint was that at about 11 a.m. on the 18.5.1963, the opposite party went to the house of the petitioner in village Rampur-Pratappur and wanted to search his house on the plea that one Rameshwar Nonia, who was an accused in a dacoity case was being harboured by the petitioner in his house. The petitioner and also his father, who was present there, denied the allegation and protested to the proposed search of their house by the opposite party, on the ground that the latter had held no search warrant from a Magistrate. The petitioner also represented that his elder brother Parmeshwar Dayal was away from the house. The opposite party proposed to the petitioner for some illegal gratification as a reward for not searching his house, which the petitioner refused. Thereupon the petitioner was threatened by the opposite party with serious consequences that he would see the petitioner and the members of his family involved in some cases. The opposite party, however, left the petitioners place at that stage. 4. After the opposite party left, the petitioner went to Autarnagar railway station with a view to go to Chapra, but he missed the train. He was waiting at the station to take a train for Dighwara so that he could catch a bus there and go to Chapra. In the meantime the opposite party arrived at the railway station. He called out the petitioner and took him to a betel shop of one Bhirgunath Sah where four armed constables were in waiting. The opposite party caught hold of the hands of the petitioner, to which he expressed his resentment. Thereupon the opposite party abused the petitioner and slapped him. He called out the petitioner and took him to a betel shop of one Bhirgunath Sah where four armed constables were in waiting. The opposite party caught hold of the hands of the petitioner, to which he expressed his resentment. Thereupon the opposite party abused the petitioner and slapped him. The petitioner was then taken into custody by the opposite party and taken in a jeep to Chapra where he was produced before the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The further allegation was that the opposite party had not drawn up any first information report against the petitioner by that time, but he filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate saying that the petitioner should not be released on bail because a test identification parade was to he held. The petitioner was, however, released on bail on the 27-5-1963, whereafter his own Tilak ceremony was performed on the 29-5-1963. He could not, therefore, file the complaint petition earlier than 1-6-1963. 5. After the petitioner filed his complaint, he was examined by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on solemn affirmation. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate did not dismiss the complaint petition at that stage, but referred it under S. 202 of the Criminal P.C. for enquiry by a Magistrate, Sri 8. N. Prasad. It appears that Sri S. N. Prasad notified the accused-opposite party also and he was allowed to be represented by the District Public Prosecutor, who suggested some questions to be put to the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. The learned Enquiring Magistrate submitted his report on 4.11.1963 saying that the case for demand of illegal gratification was not true, but the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner disclosed a prima facie case against the opposite party under Ss. 323, 500 and 504 of the Penal Code. The learned Enquiring Magistrate in his report also indicated that although the accused opposite party was allowed to be represented by the District Public Prosecutor, who had suggested some questions by way of cross-examination to be put to the witnesses, he did not take notice of the materials that came in the cross-examination of the witnesses. 6. The report of the Enquiring Magistrate was considered by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate and arguments were heard on 3-1-1964 and order reserved for 16-1-1964. 6. The report of the Enquiring Magistrate was considered by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate and arguments were heard on 3-1-1964 and order reserved for 16-1-1964. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, however, passed order on 29-6-1964, as late as six months after he had considered the report of the Enquiring Magistrate on 3-1-1964, and by this order he has dismissed the complaint. 7. The impugned order, I must say at the very outset, is much too laboured and even then the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has not considered at all the report of the Enquiring Magistrate. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has weighed and scrutinised the evidence as if he was holding a full dressed trial. After referring to some of the answers given by the witnesses to questions put on behalf of the opposite party, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has observed. " . . . . the facts elicited as a result of such questions have also to be taken into consideration in judging the truth or falsity of the case. In the present case from the questions put to the witnesses it appears that according to the accuseds version he (the accused) had gone to the complainants house for arresting Rameahwar Nonia, that while he and his party were bringing Rameshwar Nonia under arrest Sheodayal Singh forcibly rescued him, whereupon subsequently the same day the accused arrested Sheodayal Singh at Awatar Nagar Railway Station." It would appear that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate has made full use of the evidence brought out in the cross examination of the witnesses on behalf of the accused-opposite party, and he has also taken into consideration the truth or otherwise of the version of the accused-opposite party. In justification for so doing, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has referred to certain Rules in the Police Manual to say that a Police officer against whom a complaint has been filed, is entitled to be present at the enquiry and suggest questions to be put to the witnesses. He has not, however, taken into consideration certain decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to the effect that an accused has no locus standi in an enquiry under S. 202 Criminal P.C. in view of the rules of the Police Manual. He has not, however, taken into consideration certain decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to the effect that an accused has no locus standi in an enquiry under S. 202 Criminal P.C. in view of the rules of the Police Manual. The rules of the Police Manual cannot override the provisions contained in S. 202 of the Criminal P.C. which has been interpreted by the various High Courts in India and also the Supreme Court that an accused in an inquiry under S. 202 has no locus standi. This question was considered in Chandra Deo Singh V/s. Prokash Chandra Bose, air 1963 SC 1430 . Mudholkar, J. with whom the other Hon ble Judges agreed, has laid down the law after referring to the contention of the accused, in the following terms. "A privilege conferred by these provisions can, according to Mr. Sethi, be waived by the accused persons and he can take part in the proceedings. No doubt, one of the objects behind the provisions of S. 202, Criminal P.C. is to enable the Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. But there is also another object behind this provision and it is to find out what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. It is the bounden duly of the Magistrate while making an enquiry to elicit all facts not merely with a view to protect the interests of an absent accused person, but also with a view to bring to book a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Whether the complaint is frivolous or not has, at that stage necessarily to be determined on the basis of the material placed before him by the complaint. Whatever defence the accused may have can only be enquired into at the trial. An enquiry under S. 202 can in no sense be characterised as a trial for the simple reason that in law there can be but one trial for an offence. Permitting an accused person to intervene during the enquiry would frustrate its very object and that is why the legislature has made no specific provision permitting an accused person to take part in an enquiry." 8. It was further observed in para. Permitting an accused person to intervene during the enquiry would frustrate its very object and that is why the legislature has made no specific provision permitting an accused person to take part in an enquiry." 8. It was further observed in para. 8 of the same Judgment : "For determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. Thereafter his Lordship referred to a number of decisions of the various High Courts in India and further observed towards the end of the aforesaid paragraph : "The learned Judges in some of these cases have been at pains to observe that an enquiry under S. 202 is not to be likened to a trial which can only take place after process is issued, and that there can be only one trial. No doubt, as stated in sub-s. (1) of S. 202 itself the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, but the Magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at the enquiry which would naturally mean the complaint itself, the statement on oath made by the complainant and the statements made before him by persons examined at the instance of the complainant. 9. It would thus appear that an accused at an enquiry stage under S. 202 of the Criminal P.C. cannot be allowed to partake in the enquiry so as to convert it into a full dressed trial. But the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, as I have already indicated, took unnecessary pains to scrutinise the evidence with reference to the defence case and came to a finding that : ".. . . the whole story of demand of illegal gratification in the manner and circumstances alleged is preposterous and cannot bear the test of reason and common sense." The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has also criticised why out of the twelve witnesses named in the petition of complaint, only ten were examined, and not the remaining two. He has further criticised the non-examination of some of the witnesses. He has further criticised the non-examination of some of the witnesses. He has at another place observed referring to some of the evidence "the evidences of the witnesses bristles with equally serious and irreconcilable discripancies." At another place, after weighing some evidence and circumstances of the case, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has observed: "This statement completely demolishes the story of the complainant having been waiting in the Station Masters office and the accused having called him from there." Again, at another place, he has observed : "So the entire edifice of the prosecution story that Sheodeyal was arrested at the shop of Bhirgunath Sah and in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution crumbles to the ground." It is not necessary to refer to all such findings of the learned Magistrate. He clearly travelled beyond his jurisdiction to weigh and scrutinise the evidence recorded by another Magistrate, as if he was conducting a full dressed trial. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as already indicated, has not at all considered the report of the Enquiring Magistrate concerning the prosecution of the opposite party under certain Sections of the Penal Code. 10. At this stage I may refer to the provisions of S. 203 of the Criminal P.C., which is to the following effect: "The Magistrate before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred, may dismiss the complaint if, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and the witnesses and the result of the investigation or inquiry (if any) under S. 202, there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding. In such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing." It would appear that this section gives full authority to the Magistrate either to take cognizance of an offence or to dismiss the complaint, even after the result of an inquiry conducted under S. 202, Criminal P.C. as against the recommendation of the Enquiring officer. But while doing so, the Magistrate has to record briefly his reasons. Thus although the Enquiring Magistrate had recommended for the prosecution of the opposite party, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was within his competence to have acted against it and dismiss the complaint; but he was surely bound under the law to have given his reasons for not accepting the report. Thus although the Enquiring Magistrate had recommended for the prosecution of the opposite party, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was within his competence to have acted against it and dismiss the complaint; but he was surely bound under the law to have given his reasons for not accepting the report. As I have said, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not at all considered the report of the Enquiring Magistrate, but has written his own independent order, ignoring altogether the report of the Enquiring Magistrate. He was, therefore, not at all right in having dismissed the complaint. 11 The case has, therefore, to go back for further enquiry. I would however, observe that the opposite party need not be put on trial all at once, but I would direct that the learned District Magistrate should himself consider the report of the Enquiring Magistrate, or if he so desires, he may get another enquiry under S. 202, Criminal P.C. made by some other Magistrate, and then decide whether the evidence discloses a prima facie case or not so as to put the accused opposite party on trial or whether the complaint should be dismissed. He should decide this question on the merits or infirmities inherent in the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant, like the late filing of the complaint or any inherent improbability in the case or the like. 12. Before parting with the case, I must observe that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate should not have delayed his order for over six months. 13. The application is, therefore, allowed and the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated the 29-6-1964, is set aside. The case is remanded for further enquiry as stated above.