Order: This petition arises in the following circumstances: On 28th December, 1973, respondents. D. Rudrappa presented a complaint petition in the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate at Bhadravathi, in C.C.No. 2 of 1974, against the petitioners for the offences under sections 500 and 341, I.P.C. The main allegations in the complaint petition are that on 26th December, 1973, petitioner No. 1 convened a meeting and gave an ex-parte decision ex-communicating the respondent and the members of his family and prohibiting them from attending Antaragattamma temple at Bhadravathi and that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were also present in that meeting and that thereafter petitioners 2 to 7 went on spreading the said decision rendered by petitioner 1 to persons at Bhadravathi and Bannur. Then the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the respondent on 1st January, 1974, which reads thus: “I swear that the contents of the complaint-petition are true and I have signed the complaint-petition. The application is written to my instructions.” The learned Magistrate, on the same day, passed the following order: “Sworn statement of the applicant recorded. Register a case under sections 500 and 341 of Indian Penal Code the accused against Issue S.S. to accused by 19th January, 1974.” It is that order that is challenged in this revision-petition. 2. It is contended by Sri. B.V. Deshpande learned Counsel for the petitioners that while passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure prescribed by sections 200 and 204, Cr.P. Code. In other words his submission is that the complainant has not been examined in the manner required by law and besides the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind as to whether there were sufficient grounds for issuing process against the petitioners in respect of those offences. In my opinion there is force in this contention. 3. The principal object of examining a complainant on his filing a. complaint petition under section 200 Cr.P. Code, is for ascertaining the veracity of the complainant and whether the facts mentioned in the complaint-petition require investigation by a criminal Court. It is therefore obvious that the examination of a complainant is not to be a mere matter of routine, and there must be some objectivity in the performance of that act because that is intended to help the Magistrate in judging whether or not sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case. It is therefore obvious that the examination of a complainant is not to be a mere matter of routine, and there must be some objectivity in the performance of that act because that is intended to help the Magistrate in judging whether or not sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case. The examination of a complainant contemplated by section 200, Cr.P. Code, it is manifest, his a specific object to serve, and a perfunctory examination is likely to defeat that object. 4. In the instant case, from the facts stated above, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has not taken sufficient care in recording the sworn statement of the complainant as required by law, and his examination of the complainant is to say the least perfunctory. It is equally clear that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while issuing process, for satisfying himself as to whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed, in the manner he did. The words occurring in section 204, Cr.P. Code, clearly indicate that he must apply his mind and form an opinion as to whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed with the case, and the impugned order does not indicate that he applied his mind to this aspect. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside, and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the complaint-petition in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.