JUDGMENT : B.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner was serving as an assistant teacher during November, 1967 in the Revenshaw Collegiate School at Cuttack where at that time opposite party No. 1 was the headmaster and opposite parties 2 to 6 were employed as assistant teachers and opposite parties 7 to 25 were students. The Petitioner filed a complaint on 9.11.1968 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Cuttack alleging commission of offences punishable u/s 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 120-B, 107, 109 and 34 thereof by the opposite parties. 2. In the petition of complaint the following allegations, inter alia, were made: That on 11.11.1967 by, and at the instance and instigation of, accused persons Nos. 1 to 6, the students of class XI of the said Ravenshaw Collegiate School were assembled and gathered in the gallery hall of the school and accused persons, namely accused persons to 6 in conclusion, connivance and conspiracy inter se and with the rest of the accused persons as when as the other accused persons made and published imputations, subsequently reduced to writing as contained in annexure-A, to the students against the complainant and influenced and instigated the students of class XI so gathered and collected to write and subscribe their allegiance to such imputations independently and individually in their own language under their own signature and to publish the imputations accordingly... That on 13-11-1967 at the instance and under the direction, control, supervision, vigilance and instigation of the accused persons the students of class XI, as many of them as were present on that date were paraded and escorted to the gallery hall of the school before roll can. That on 13-11-1967 at the instance and under the direction, control, supervision, vigilance and instigation of the accused persons the students of class XI, as many of them as were present on that date were paraded and escorted to the gallery hall of the school before roll can. There the students paraded secreted and ultimately gathered in the gallery hall by the accused persons were prevailed upon, instigated by all the accused persons and ultimately forced and directed by the accused persons 1 to 6 with threat of their, authority and Control over them, to listen without disturbance to the false and defamatory imputations against the complainant as in annexure-A. That after the said imputations were so made and published by the accused persons, mainly accused Sections 1 to 4 influenced, instigated and ultimately directed the students so gathered and collected in the gallery hall to write and subscribe their signature to the said baseless, unfounded, yet seriously damaging slanderous imputations as contained in annexure-A to defame the complainant.... Various similar allegations were also made. The imputations contained in the defamatory writing were appended as annexure-A. Five specific allegations against the Petitioner (complainant) were made. The first imputed home sexual relationship with students, the second alleged vindictive approach the third said that the complainant as pursuing some students out of suspicion. It was again alleged that the complainant was an inefficient and in competent teacher. An event of November 10, 1967 was specifically referred to as demonstrative of the ill will, vindictiveness and motivated approach of the complainant towards the students. The document bore the signature of 68 persons described as the aggrieved persons. 3. The learned magistrate examined the complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed an inquiry u/s 202 thereof by a judicial magistrate of the second class, who after inquiry reported that a prima facie case had been made out against the opposite parties 1 to 6; but there was no prima facie case against the others. 3. The learned magistrate examined the complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed an inquiry u/s 202 thereof by a judicial magistrate of the second class, who after inquiry reported that a prima facie case had been made out against the opposite parties 1 to 6; but there was no prima facie case against the others. When the report was placed before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate for further action, he by the impugned order dated 20th February, 1969, held that & prima facie case against opposite parties 1 to 6 u/s 600 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out, yet, instead of issuing process against them, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate directed a further inquiry u/s 202 of the Code by another judicial magistrate. This direction of the learned Magistrate is impugned in the revision. 4. More than three years have been taken in making this application ready for hearing. That has been mainly on account of the fact that opposite parties 7 to 25 who were then students of the top class of the school have gone out of the institution and their where abouts have been difficult to gather. In fact even by now three of them remain to be served. As I propose to pass no prejudicial order against them it is not necessary to wait further for the postal acknowledgment. 5. I have no doubt in my mind that the direction for further inquiry was in expedient in this case. The magistrate in the inquiry u/s 202 of the Code recorded evidence and came to find a prima facie case against opposite parties 1 to 6. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on a scrutiny of the evidence came to the same conclusion. As was indicated in Harekrushna Mohanty v. Adikanda Behera Officer-in-charge Town P.S. Puri 31 (1966) C.L.T. 1100 the object of an inquiry u/s 202 of; the Code is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint petition are intrinsically true. In Order to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding u/s 204 (not Section 203), the magistrate is entitled to consider the evidence recorded at the inquiry u/s 202, the statements of the complainant and his witnesses on oath and? the result of the investigation or inquiry. In Order to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding u/s 204 (not Section 203), the magistrate is entitled to consider the evidence recorded at the inquiry u/s 202, the statements of the complainant and his witnesses on oath and? the result of the investigation or inquiry. It is the settled position in law that the inquiry under this section is not a substitute for trial which would follow if the magistrate issues process u/s 204. Once the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate on a reading of the evidence collected during the inquiry was of the view that a prima facie case against opposite parties 1 to 6 had been made out, he was to take action u/s 204 of the Code. If he was not satisfied with the conclusion of the inquiring magistrate regarding the other opposite parties, nothing steed in his way from reading the evidence on record and decide whether in regard to them, action was to be taken u/s 203 or 204, of the Code. The fact of the case, however, do not justify a further inquiry. 6. On this analysis, I have no difficulty in vacating the impugned order and remit the matter to the learned magistrate to deal with the situation on the basis of the record. But as I find, the prosecution has been miserably delayed. Four years have been lost. The learned magistrate, even if be decides to proceed with the case, shall be faced with the same difficulties as the Petitioner had in this Court in serving the summons on the opposite parties. Many of the students with the afflux of time must have gone into different spheres of activity in life. The evidence in this case which is substantially oral (apart from annexure-A) would be difficult to gather new and if the parties are required to fight out a long drawn litigation, the cause of justice shall not be served. The young boys who must have been in new settings by afflux of time shall be drawn to suffer a trial for what they are alleged to have done years back under threat or persuation or directions of opposite parties 1 to 6. It is a stale prosecution and is likely to cause greater injustice by being continued than contribute to the cause of justice. 7. It is a stale prosecution and is likely to cause greater injustice by being continued than contribute to the cause of justice. 7. It is not for me to conjecture if the allegations in Annexure-A or in the petition of complaint are true. If a trial took place, there could have been an adjudication. I have the feeling that the complainant and his colleagues have been fallen out and some nasty allegations were made against the complainant. If the allegations of Annexure-A were true, it is unfortunate that such indeed was the state of affairs. If these are conceded, the situation is worse. The action of the collegues of the complainant deserves to be condemned in unequivocal terms. In one of the premier schools of the State run for imparting education to youngsters, the atmosphere is expected to be of much higher order than the performance revealed in the allegations and counter allegations in the record. 8. I am afraid to afford an opportunity for washing the dirty linen at this belated stage would be purposeless particularly because the entire setting has been changed. The Petitioner and his collegues have gone to different institutions as a consequence of the exigencies of service. The boys have, as I have already stated, grown old and got fitted in new surroundings. For these reasons I do not propose to remit the matter for further consideration in the hands of the learned magistrate. On the other hand, I direct that the proceeding shall stand quashed and the complaint shall be taken to have been dismissed. 9. Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner indicated hearing during that unless the matter is further inquired into and the opposite parties are suitably dealt with, the Petitioner runs the risk of administrative action against him on the basis of the allegations in Annexure-A. I wanted to know the stand of the State in the matter from the learned Additional Government Advocate who represented it in this case and he candidly said that he had the same reactions as I have expressed I hope the employers of the complainant would not proceed at this belated point of time to institute an administrative inquiry into the matter and thereby prejudice the Petitioner because by my quashing the complaint, be has been deprived of the opportunity of obtaining an adjudication to vindicate his stand of innocence. I repeat that the allegations were nasty and under serving for a teacher, but until they are established the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer merely because they were made. But I reiterate that an inquiry into them at this belated stage would be wholly unnecessary. I part with the case by saying that the teachers must justify their position by behaving as teachers. They must set the ideal before their students by living a life behaving of their status and not indulge in the allegations as in this case indicated. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the revision is dismissed.