SANTHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a reference made under S. 438 Crpc by the learned Sessions judge of Dharwar in Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 1971. ( 2 ) TO appreciate the contentions urged in the case, a few facts may be mentioned. The complainant Rudrappa Ishwarappa Kotre filed a complaint against 8 accused charging them with having committed offences under Ss. 454, 171f, 417, 420 read with 34 and 120b IPC before the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Second Court, Hubli. The learned Magistrate aften recording the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the case and called for a police report from the Assistant Superintendent, of Police, under Sec. 202 Crpc. The Asst. Superintendent of Police submitted a 'b' report on 4-2-1969. Thereafter the learned Magistrate on 17-4-1969, directed that the complaint be returned to the complainant for filing it to the proper Court. Then the complainant presented the complaint on 25-4-1969 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, hubli. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant passed an order under S. 202 Crpc referring the complaint to the PSI. , Hubli Town for enquiry and report. On 23-2-1970, the PSI submitted a 'b' report to the Court. On 20-7-1970, the complainant filed a petition before the Court stating that as the PSI's report is not satisfactory, he should be given an opportunity to examine the witnesses on his behalf and filed a list of witnesses. The learned Magistrate acceeded to the request of the complainant and recorded the statements of 9 witnesses. Thereafter, on 4-10-1971 he passed the impugned order that after perusing the contents of the complaint and his verification statements and deposition of witnesses and other documents, it was seen that there was substantial ground for proceeding against all the accused excepting accused 3. Accordingly he registered a case against the said accused persons under Ss. 120b, 171f, 471 read with 34, IPC. Some of the accused persons challenged the above mentioned order passed by the learned magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge in a revision petition. Accordingly he registered a case against the said accused persons under Ss. 120b, 171f, 471 read with 34, IPC. Some of the accused persons challenged the above mentioned order passed by the learned magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge in a revision petition. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the revision petition, came to the conclusion that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was totally illegal and opposed to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Cdoe, and after discussing the various decisions of the High Courts, he came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was not justified in allowing the complainant, after the report of the Police under S. 202 Crpc had been received, to examine the witnesses to fill in the gaps in the case, and held that even on merits the complainant did not have any case and recommended that it was a fit case for this Court to quash the entire proceedings in the interest of justice. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the state has supported the reference. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused has also supported the reference. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has argued that there was nothing wrong in the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate in examining the witnesses after the Police report had been received by the Court. It is contended that S. 202 Crpc is only an enabling provision and there is nothing in the said section which prohibits or fetters the powers of the Magistrate in examining the witnesses. It is argued that sub-clause (2a) of S. 202 Crpc enables a Magistrate to take evidence of witnesses on oath and that the learned Magistrate has acted under the above said provision in iecording the evidence of witnesses produced on, behalf of the prosecution after the receipt of the Police report under s. 202 Crpc. The learned Counsel has strongly relied on the two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Manonardas Babaji v. Khandu Dutta, AIR 1966 Cal. 633 . and Kshitish Chandra Shome v. The State, AIR. 1967 Cal. 114. The learned Counsel has also relied on Govindaswami Gowda v. Ramanna, 5 Mys. L. J. 88. and also State of mysore v. Shankarappa Satteppa India, (1971) 2 Mys. L. J. 323. in support of his said contentions. 633 . and Kshitish Chandra Shome v. The State, AIR. 1967 Cal. 114. The learned Counsel has also relied on Govindaswami Gowda v. Ramanna, 5 Mys. L. J. 88. and also State of mysore v. Shankarappa Satteppa India, (1971) 2 Mys. L. J. 323. in support of his said contentions. It is also urged by the learned Counsel that in any case, the proceedings are not vitiated by the subsequent examination of witnesses by the learned Magistrate. ( 5 ) WE will now consider the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code dealing with the powers of a Magsitrate in entertaining complaints. S. 200 Crpc states that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesesse present, if any, upon oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. S. 202 Crpc which is the next relevant section states that any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance, or which has been, transferred to him u/s. 192, may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing,, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire into the case himself or, it he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third clase, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. The next relevant provision for our purpose in the above said section is sub-clause (2a) of S. 202, which states that any Magistrate inquiring into a' case under this section may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath. The next relevant provision for our purpose in the above said section is sub-clause (2a) of S. 202, which states that any Magistrate inquiring into a' case under this section may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the wordings of S. 202 that a Magistrate, if he thiks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing can postpone 'the issue of process and then either : (i)inquire into the case himself; or (ii) call for a report from a subordinate Magistrate; or (iii) call for a report from a police officer; or (iv) call for a report from such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. It is open to the Magistrate to follow any of these four alternatives laid cown by S. 202, but this section does not authorise the Magistrate to make use of all these alternatives. ( 7 ) IN Sabarva v. Gopalappa , Cr. R. P. 622|70. this Court had to consider the provisions of S 202 Cr. PC. In the above said case, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, and acting on the first part of S. 202 Crpc. , decided to hold an inquiry himself. After having decided to hold an inquiry himself and examining 4 more witnesses, the learned Magistrate thereafter called for a report from the police under S. 202 Crpc. This Court held that a Magistrate after having made an inquiry himself under S. 202, was not competent thereafter to call for a police report, and the action taken by the learned Magistrate in the said case was opposed to the provisions of section 202 Crpc. This Court in the said revision petition referred to the case of Emperor v. Durga Prasad. , ILR. 1922 All. 550. where it has been laid down that under S. 202 Crpc. , a Magistrate may either inquire into the case himself or may direct local investigation by the police, but he cannot combine the two procedures. This Court also referred to the case of Radha Kishum v. G. K. Kisra, AIR. 1949 Pat. 36 which laid down that under provisions of S. 202 Crpc. , a Magistrate may either inquire into the case himself or may direct local investigation by the police, but he cannot combine the two procedures. This Court also referred to the case of Radha Kishum v. G. K. Kisra, AIR. 1949 Pat. 36 which laid down that under provisions of S. 202 Crpc. , the Magistrate should either hold an inquiry himself or he should refer the matter to the' police for enquiry; it is not open to him to combine both these methods. There is no force in the contention that it is open to the magistrate under Sec. 200, to take evidence of witnesses on oath after calling for the police report under S. 202 Crpc. Sub-cl. (2a) only refers to the case of a Magistrate himself inquiring into the truth of the complaint mentioned under the first part of S. 202. It clearly says that any magistrate inquiring into the case under this section, may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath. This, in our opinion, does not authorise the Magistrate to record the evidence of witnesses after he has called for police report. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorising the Court, after the receipt of the police report to examine witnesses on behalf of the complainant to disprove the police report. It is open to the Court after taking into account the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses, if any, produced by him at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint, and the police report, to decide whether there was sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case and issuing process against the accused. . ( 8 ) WE are of opinion that the decision of the old Mysore High Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the complainant is not of any help to him. In Govidaswamy Gowda v. Ramanna (3) the Magistrate after receiving a 'b' report from the police, without recording any reasons, summarily dismissed the complaint. The learned Judge held that the action of the Magistrate was illegal and remanded the case lor fresh disposal according to law. In Govidaswamy Gowda v. Ramanna (3) the Magistrate after receiving a 'b' report from the police, without recording any reasons, summarily dismissed the complaint. The learned Judge held that the action of the Magistrate was illegal and remanded the case lor fresh disposal according to law. ( 9 ) IN State of Mysore v. Shankarappa Sateppa Indi (4), the learned magistrate on a complaint of an offence under Child Marriage Restraint act without holding any preliminary enquiry as required by S. 10 of the said Act, straightaway issued summons to the accused and then, when this legal defect was brought to his notice, held a preliminary enquiry and thereafter dimisaed the complaint. This Court held that the learned magistrate has violated the mandatory provisions of S. 10, by not holding a preliminary inquiry before issuing summons, but as the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint after holding a preliminary enquiry, was not a judgment, it was open to the Magistrate to review his own order. The question whether a Magisrtate alter calling for a police report can examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant did not arise in the said case. ( 10 ) WE are also of opinion that the two single Judge decisions of the same Judge of Calcutta High Court in Manohardas Babaji's case (1) and kshitish Chandra Shome's case (2), do not also deal with the points raised in the instant case. In both the above said cases, the learned Judge held that it was open to the Magistrate to direct the holding of a second enquiry under S. 202 Crpc. The question, whether the- Magistrate, after calling for a report from the police, can examine the witnesses on behalf of the complainant did not arise in this case. , ( 11 ) WE have already mentioned the two decisions-Emperor v Durga Prasad (6) and Radha Kishum v. G. K. Kisra (7), which have laid down that under S. 202 Crpc. , it is not open to the Magistrate to hold an inquiry himself and also call for a police report. The decisions have laid down that it is not open to the Magistrate to combine both the methods mentioned in S. 202 Crpc. , it is not open to the Magistrate to hold an inquiry himself and also call for a police report. The decisions have laid down that it is not open to the Magistrate to combine both the methods mentioned in S. 202 Crpc. Apart from Allahabad and Patna High Court decisions, the learned Sessions Judge has also referred to the various decisions of other High Courts, which have also laid down that it is not open to the Magistrate to examine witnesses on behalf of the complainant after calling for a report U/s. 202 Crpc. In Nallappa Piliai v. Palanlandi ambalam, AIR. 1949 Mad, 232. Govinda Menon, J,, as he then was, has pointed out that it is not obligatory upon the Magistrate before whom the complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred, to give an opportunity to the complainant to show that the report of the police enquiry is wrong, S. 203 does not impose such a duty. All that the Magistrate has to do is to consider the statement on oath, if any, of the complainant as well us the result of the investigation or enquiry under S. 202 Crpc before he dismisses the complaint and nowhere it is stated that a Magistrate who has referred a complaint for enquiry should, after receipt of the police report, give an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence to show that the report of the police is wrong or incorrect. It has been pointed out by his lordship that if such a view is accepted. it makes the provisions of S. 203, crpc. much wider than it is cxpressly stated. Again in Dattatraya Dulaji ghachgaonkar v. Wadilal Panchalal, AIR. 1958 Bom. 335, their Lordships of the Bombay high Court agreed with the view taken in Nallappa Pillai's case (8) and observed that S. 200 to 208 form a chapter in themselves under the heading ' of complaint to Magistrate ' and the said chapter laid down the procedure to deal with complaints lodged by private persons. Their Lordships Shelat and Miabhoy, JJ. , further observed that there is no provision which compels a Magistrate who has referred a complaint for enquiry to give an opportunity to complainant, after the recept of the police report and before he dismisses the complaint to adduce evidence to show that the police report is wrong or incorrect. Their Lordships Shelat and Miabhoy, JJ. , further observed that there is no provision which compels a Magistrate who has referred a complaint for enquiry to give an opportunity to complainant, after the recept of the police report and before he dismisses the complaint to adduce evidence to show that the police report is wrong or incorrect. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the learned Magistrate has acted illegally and against the provisions of S. 202 Crpc in permitting the complainant to examine nine witnesses after the receipt of the police report, called for by him under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 12 ) THERE is also no force in the contention of the learne'd Counsel that the examination of witnesses on behalf of the complainant after calling for the police report and relying on them, is a curable irregularity. We have already pointed out. that under the Code, S. 202 deals with the powers of the Magistrate in receiving the complaint and that the Magistrate has no other power outside the Code and he has to act in conformity with the provisions of the Code. In Chandradeo Singh v. Prokash chandra Bose, AIR. 1963 SC. 1430. their Lordships have clearly laid down that where a magistrate iss ordered an inquiry under S. 202 by another Magistrate, it is not open to him to consider the statement recorded during investigation by the police and if the Magistrate acted on such extraneous male- rial, the proceedings would be vitiated. ( 13 ) IT has been finally contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that this is a fit case for remand, and the Magistrate may be directed to give a fresh finding. It may be pointed out that the learned sessions Judge, in his order has also" considered the merits of the case and after examining the same he has come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for the proceedings to be continued against the accused and has suggested that the final order issuing process against the accused, may be quashed. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect of the matter in paragraphs 30 and 31 of his order and observed as follows :" 30. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect of the matter in paragraphs 30 and 31 of his order and observed as follows :" 30. For these reasons, I hold that the Magistrate was not justified in allowing the complainant a long rope in examining further witnesses till at last he could find some witnesses over a period of more than one year to rope in some of the accused. Such procedure, as observed above, in my considered view goes to defeat the salutary and laudable object enshrined in S. 202 of Crpc that an innocent man shall not be harassed by a cantankerous complainant by false and vexatious allegations made in a complaint and thus I am constrained to hold that the order of the learned Magistrate, mainly based on the evidence adduced by resorting to the illegal procedure, has resulted in prejudice to the accused and is liable to be set aside. The learned Magistrate in the absence of any reason shown to the contrary, should have accepted the result of the detailed and exhaustive enquiry made by the police. "31. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, the police in their investigation examined all the witnesses mentioned in the complaint and examined all the documents referred to therein and in addition, the complainant gave another list of witnesses therein and their evidence was also recorded and it is not the case of the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant before me that the material exhaustively collected would disclose any case against the accused. He mainly relies on the evidence of some of the witnesses examined by the complainant after the result of the enquiry was received, obviously to bolster up his case and to vindicate his complaint i. e. , relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In my considered view, such evidence cannot be looked into and relied upon. It is collected; as it were in a desperate attempt by the complainant to rope in the accused, his allegations being found baseless in the police enquiry. In my considered view, such evidence cannot be looked into and relied upon. It is collected; as it were in a desperate attempt by the complainant to rope in the accused, his allegations being found baseless in the police enquiry. I may state here at the cost of repetition that to allow such a procedure would go to destroy the very purpose of safeguarding the interest of innocent persons" we agree with the learned Sessions Judge that in the police report, the various witnesses mentioned by the complainant and also the further list of witnesses examined by him have not supported the case of the complainant and no useful purpose would be served by continuing these proceedings. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, we accept the reference and quash the impugned order directing the issue of summons to the accused, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Hubli. --- *** --- .