( 1 ) THE complainant in this case, one Gandhi Siddiah claiming to be one of the members of the managing committee of 'dalitha Vidyarthi Nilaya, mysore', filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of the City magistrate, Mysore, alleging that they had committed offences punishable under S. 420 and 406 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate heard the com- piainant and postponed issue of process to the petitioners. To ascertain the truth of the allegaions, he sent the complaint to the Circle Inspector of police. Mysore under S. 156 (3) of the IPC for investigation and report. While forwarding the complaint, the learned Magistrate directed the Circle inspector to seize the documents of the Society and examine them to find out the truth of the allegations. Accordingly, the Circle Inspector seized the documents and investigated into the complaint made by the complaih nant. After investigation he submitted 'b' report stating that no case had been made out against the petitioners either under S. 420 or 406 of the IPC and that, the dispute was of a civil nature. ( 2 ) AFTER receipt of the 'b' report the complainant wanted to prove his case. He made allegations against the Circle Inspector of Police that he had not investigated into the case properly and had sided the petitioners. The learned Magistrate after going through the complaint and the report of the investigation made by the police, and after hearing the complainant, was o the view that no case had been made out by the complainant to enable him to issue process against the petitioners for any of the offences alleged in the complaint. In that view, he dismissed the complaint under S. 203 of the criminal Procedure Code. ( 3 ) THE complainant took the matter in revision and the learned Sessions judge took the view that before a complaint could be rejected u|s. 203 of he Crlpc. the complainant should have been given an opportunity to meet the reasons given by the police in their report and in that view, he set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the complaint to be disposed of according to law. the complainant should have been given an opportunity to meet the reasons given by the police in their report and in that view, he set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the complaint to be disposed of according to law. The learned Sessions Judge was also of opinion that there was a duty cast upon the Court to give an opportunity to the complainant to explain or meet the evidence recorded by the police during the investigation and that in this case such duty had not been discharged. ( 4 ) S. 203 of the Crlpc makes it clear that the judgment which the magistrate has to form must be based on the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry. The judgment which the Magistrate has to form is whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for the offences alleged in the complaint. The Magistrate is not bound to accept the result of the enquiry or investigation or any plea that is set up on behalf of the person complained against. The Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the facts on which he has to form his judgment. In arriving at his judgment he is not fettered in any way except by judicial considerations. He is not bound to accept what the enquiry Officer says. If the Magistrate has not misled himself as to the scope of an enquiry under S. 202 and has applied his mind judiciously to the materials before him, that itself is a sufficient compliance of S. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 5 ) A bare persual of the complaint and the report of the Police Officer shows that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are absent and the dispute appears to be of a civil nature. In fact, on the complaint of the complainant the Registrar of the Societies appears to have taken action and instituted an enquiry in regard to the allegations made by him. The Registrar if, after making an enquiry finds that the petitioners have committed any offences, he would be the best person to make a complaint against the petitioner. In fact, on the complaint of the complainant the Registrar of the Societies appears to have taken action and instituted an enquiry in regard to the allegations made by him. The Registrar if, after making an enquiry finds that the petitioners have committed any offences, he would be the best person to make a complaint against the petitioner. At any rate, on the facts of this case the learned Magistrate was justified in not proceeding against the petitioners by issuing process, because no prima facie material was placed before him to proceed against the petitioners for offences punishable under Ss. 420 and 406 cf the Penal Code. ( 6 ) IT is contended by Sri. V. K. Govindarajulu, the learned counsel for the complainant, that the dismissal of the complaint without giving an opportunity to the complainant to show that the report of the police enquiry is wrong, was not correct. A perusal of Ss. 202 and 203 of the Crlpc goes to show that it is not obligatory upon the Magistrate before whom the complaint is made and to whom it has been referred, 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 as the result of the investigation or enquiry under S. 202 of the Crlpc before he dismisses the complaint. Nowhere is it stated that a Magistrate who has refered a complaint for enquiry of investigation should, after receipt of the report, give an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence to, show that the report of the police is wrong or incorrect. On the facts of this case, i am satisfied that the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, I set aside the order of the learned Sessions Juage and restore the one passed by the Magistrate. In the result, this petition is allowed. --- *** --- .