Judgment G.N. Prasad, J. This application arises under the following circumstances. On the 26th March, 1970, the opposite party, Abdus Shakoor, presented a complaint to the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of Darbhanga alleging offences under sections 323 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code said to have been committed by the petitioner and three others on the previous day, that is, 25.3.1970. On receipt of this complaint, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the following order on the same day :- "Perused the complaint petition and heard. Prima facie case appears to be true Cognizance taken against all the accused persons U/S 323/386 I.P.C. and the case transferred to the court of Shri R.K. Sharma, M. Magistrate, 1st Class, for disposal. To 1.4.70." On the 1st April, 1970, the learned Munsif Magistrate, Shri R.K. Sharma, directed an entry to be made in his trial register and upon the petitioner's surrendering in his court, he enlarged him on bail and directed the issue of processes against the remaining three accused persons. 2. The record shows that neither the Sub-Divisional Magistrate nor the trying Magistrate took care to examine the complainant on solemn affirmation, as required by section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). It was not that the complainant was a public servant, so that his examination on solemn affirmation was not necessary. The present application was filed by the petitioner quite at an early stage, namely, on the 15th May, 1970, and it was admitted on the 19th May, 1970 when further proceedings against the petitioners in the trial court were directed to be stayed. 3. It has now been settled by a Bench decision of this Court in Sudama Szngh V. Kavindra Narain Singh that before issuing processes against the accused persons. Sub-divisional Magistrate dealing with the complainant or the transferee Magistrate must examine the complainant on solemn affirmation. The issue of processes against the accused without examining the complainant on solemn affirmation is in violation of the law prescribed in section 200 of the Code. Of course, the violation does not vitiate the trial, if it is held despite this omission. But, it cannot be allowed to remain, if it is brought to the notice of the Court at the appropriate stage. Since the petitioner has moved this Court before any further progress of the case in the trial Court. Of course, the violation does not vitiate the trial, if it is held despite this omission. But, it cannot be allowed to remain, if it is brought to the notice of the Court at the appropriate stage. Since the petitioner has moved this Court before any further progress of the case in the trial Court. I am of the opinion that this application must be allowed and the case sent back to the trial court with a direction first to examine the complainant on solemn affirmation and then apply its judicial mind with a view to find out whether a case has been made out for issue of processes against the accused persons or whether there should be an enquiry under section 202 or whether the complaint petition is fit to be dismissed summarily under section 203. 4. This application is allowed as indicated above. Application allowed.