ORDER Chandra Prakash, J. - This is a reference made by Sri M.M.H. Siddiqui, Civil and Sessions Judge, Basti, by his order dated 5-9-1972 in the following circumstances. 2. One Mohan Pandey filed a complaint against 50 Applicants. The allegations in the complaint were that the 50 Applicants committed offences Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307 and 395 IPC on 7-10-1971 at about 9.10 A.M. The complaint was filed on 1-11-1971 in the Court of III Munsif Magistrate, Basti. A FIR lodged by the complainant was also filed. The Magistrate directed that the statements Under Sections 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure will be recorded on 4-11-1971. The case could not be taken on that date. It was however taken on the following day and on that date the statement of the complainant Mohan Pandey u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. On the same day the statement of another witness Ram Phal u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. After recording these two statements the Magistrate passed the following order: Read the statement Under Sections 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. The case requires investigation by the Police. Send it to the S.O. Dhebaruwa for investigation. Compliance within two months. Report by 5-1-1972. 3. The above order was sent to the police on 10-11-1971. But it appears that no police report came. The complainant complained to the Magistrate against the inaction of the police and prayed that the accused be summoned. It appears that by his order dt. 1-12-1971 the ADM (J) transferred the case to the court of Sri S.B. Vaish. Sri S.B. Vaish gave another month to S.O. Dhebaruwa to submit his report. This order does not appear to have been communicated to the S.O. Dhebaruwa. No report was received from the police station Dhebaruwa. On 5-2-1972 Sri S.B. Vaish passed the following orders: No report has come from P. Section Dhebaruwa till now. In absence of the report no alternative but to summon the accused is open to the court. Issue summons to the accused u/s 395 IPC as from the evidence adduced by the complainant a prima facie case u/s 395 IPC is maintainable against the accused. Fix 13-3-1972 for appearance. Issue a notice to S.O. Dhebaruwa u/s 485(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the disobedience of the court. 4. Issue summons to the accused u/s 395 IPC as from the evidence adduced by the complainant a prima facie case u/s 395 IPC is maintainable against the accused. Fix 13-3-1972 for appearance. Issue a notice to S.O. Dhebaruwa u/s 485(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the disobedience of the court. 4. Against the above order the accused Applicant filed an application in revision. After hearing the parties the court below has made a reference. The order summoning the accused should be quashed. 5. This order has been supported before me by the learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as on behalf of the State. It has however been opposed on behalf of the complainant. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case I have come to the conclusion that this reference has to be accepted. Section 202(1) is as follows: 202(1) 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, if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third class, 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. 7. A perusal of the above section leaves no room for doubt that any magistrate on the receipt of a complaint of an offence for reasons to be recorded in writing postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against and either enquire into the case himself, or if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third class, direct an enquiry 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. In this case the Magistrate recorded the statements of two witnesses u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure on 5-11-1971. He was not satisfied with this evidence and he therefore passed an order for further investigation by the police. In this case the Magistrate recorded the statements of two witnesses u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure on 5-11-1971. He was not satisfied with this evidence and he therefore passed an order for further investigation by the police. No doubt the order of the court below is not explicit but the above finding is implicit otherwise he would have summoned the accused without ordering any further inquiry by the police. Now the police did not submit any report with the result that no further material came before the learned Magistrate which could have enabled him to summon the accused. The summoning of the accused without securing the police report or any other evidence was therefore illegal and that order must be set aside. The reference is accepted and the order dt. 5-2-1972 summoning the accused is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed according to law.