Judgment Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an order, dated the 19th June, 1973, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barh, taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code and transferring the case for disposal to a Munsif-Magistrate, First Class. By that very order, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred to the same Munsif-Magistrate an application filed before him by petitioner No. 1 for action under Sec. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the complainant-opposite party. 2. According to the petitioners on the 23rd March, 1973. opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, alleging therein that, on the 22nd March, 1973, at about 1-30 p. m., he had kept some bamboos for fencing his land which the petitioners started lifting, which led to an altercation between the two parties. Thereafter, it is alleged that petitioner No. 1 assaulted the complainant with a Khanti on his neck and petitioner No. 2 assaulted him with a lathi. The said petition of complaint was put up before Shree Dincsh Prasad Sinha, Magistrate. First Class, Barh, on the 24th March, 1973. who examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and sent the matter for inquiry under Sec.202 of the Code to Shree O. P. Singh. Magistrate, First Class, Barh. Shree G. P. Singh, after inquiry, submitted a report, which was placed on the 19th June, 1973, before Shree Sadanand Sinha, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Barh, who passed the impugned order. In the said order, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has observed that he had looked into the inquiry report and, agreeing with the said inquiry report, he was taking cognizance and he transferred the case for disposal to Shree M. M. Verma, Munsif-Magistrate, First Class, for disposal. 3. This case Was first listed for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court who referred it to a Division Bench, and that is how this case has been placed before us. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by Shree Sadanand Sinha, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on the 19th June, 1973 is wholly without jurisdiction and in contravention of Sec.204 of the Code. According to learned Counsel, only the Magistrate taking cognizance could pass an order under Sec.204 summoning the accused. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by Shree Sadanand Sinha, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on the 19th June, 1973 is wholly without jurisdiction and in contravention of Sec.204 of the Code. According to learned Counsel, only the Magistrate taking cognizance could pass an order under Sec.204 summoning the accused. In the instant case, the initial cognizance was taken by Shree Dinesh Prasad Sinha, and, as such, Shree Sadanand Sinha could not have accepted the inquiry report and pass the impugned order. In this connection reliance has been placed on a judgment of the. Supreme Court in Rajendra Nath Mahto V/s. T. Gangooly -- . 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant-opposite party saying that, on the 19th June, 1973, Shree Dinesh Prasad Sinha had been transferred from Barh, and on the 24th March, 1973 he was acting as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and as such he was competent to pass the order dated the 24th March, 1973. 6. In view of the counter-affidavit, it has to be taken that both the orders have been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. But the only question for determination is as to whether, in a case in which cognizance had been taken by another Magistrate acting as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate can pass an order under Sec.204 of the Code after a consideration of the inquiry report. In the case of Rajendra Nath Mahto -- it has been held that the Magistrate taking cognizance should issue process under Sec.204 of the Code. In the said decision it has been pointed out that the Magistrate to whom the case is transferred for inquiry under Sec.202 can also issue process. Admittedly, the orders dated the 24th March, 1973 and the 19th June, 1973 have been passed by two different Magistrates in the instant case, one acting as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, while the other being the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 7. The order passed by Shri Sadanand Sinha on the 19th June, 1973 can be valid only if he is held to be a permanent or temporary successor-in-office of the acting Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shree Dinesh Prasad Sinha. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has urged that, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Krishnadeo Prasad V/s. Mt. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has urged that, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Krishnadeo Prasad V/s. Mt. Budhni -- either the Magistrate who had taken cognizance could pass the order under Sec.204, or his permanent or temporary successor-in-office. According to learned Counsel, Shree Sadanand Sinha, the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate, could not be deemed to be a temporary or permanent successor-in-office of the Second Officer, Shree Dinesh Prasad Sinha, and, as such, it should be held that the order passed by Shree Sadanand Sinha is illegal and without jurisdiction. In the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court, this aspect of the matter had been considered while examining the scope of Section 559 of the Code as to what is meant by successor-in-office. In that connection it was observed as follows: (9) Conversely, suppose a Second Officer, being temporarily in-charge of the work of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his absence, hears a complaint, or takes cogniance of an offence on the basis of a complaint, the question may arise whether the permanent Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on his return, can pass an order under Sec.203 or 204 of the Code in respect of that case. It seems to me that he can certainly do so because he occupies the office which the Second Officer, when entertaining the complaint or taking cognizance of the offence, occupied. In view of the aforesaid decision, it has to be held that, even if the initial order taking cognizance under Sec.190(1)(a) of the Code had been passed by the Second Officer, or any other Magistrate, acting as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, later, the order under Sec.204 can be passed by the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who would be deemed to be the successor-in-office of the Magistrate who acted as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while passing the earlier order, and, as such, there will be no infirmity in the subsequent order passed by the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 9 The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, in his order, dated the 19th June, 1973, has said that he took cognizance under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code agreeing with the inquiry report. It his been pointed out by this Court on several occasions that there is no scope of taking cognizance twice in the same proceeding. Cognizance Le taken under Sec.190 of the Code, and. It his been pointed out by this Court on several occasions that there is no scope of taking cognizance twice in the same proceeding. Cognizance Le taken under Sec.190 of the Code, and. in complaint cases, after taking cognizance, the complainant has to be examined on solemn affirmation under Sec.200. The Magistrate, on receipt of complaint or which has been transferred to him under Sec.192 of the Code, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may postpone the issue of process and either inquire into the case himself or direct an inquiry to be made by some other Magistrate, and. after such inquiry, the complaint can be dismissed under Sec.203, if no sufficient ground for proceeding is made out. On the other hand, if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, then the Magistrate has to proceed under Sec.204 of Chapter XVII of the Code. Sec.204 says that, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, be shall issue summons or warrant, as the case may be for appearance of the accused person. Whenever a Magistrate says, after receipt of the inquiry report, that, agreeing with the inquiry report, he was taking cognizance, for all purposes it is an order under Sec.204 of the Code. In such cases the Magistrate should also issue summons or warrant, as the case may be, in accordance with Sec.204 of the Code and then only he should transfer the case for disposal. The question whether a complaint case could be transferred even before the issuance of process was examined by a Bench of this Court in Sudama Singh V/s. Kavindra Narain Singh 1973 Pat LJR 35, and it was held that, in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Nath Mahto -- and Sec.202 of the Code, a complaint can be transferred to another Magistrate for inquiry before summons is issued, and such transferee Magistrate can later issue summons, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. But, if the power of transfer has not been exercised and the inquiry report is placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he should issue summons or warrant, as the case may be, in terms of Sec.204 of the Code. But, if the power of transfer has not been exercised and the inquiry report is placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he should issue summons or warrant, as the case may be, in terms of Sec.204 of the Code. I, accordingly, set aside that part of the order of Shree Sadanand Sinha by which he has transferred the case before issuance of process. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate will new pass an order for issuance of process in terms of Sec.204. 10. A grievance has also been made about the learned Magistrate having transferred the petition filed by petitioner No. 1 for action against the complainant-opposite party under Sec. 476 of the Code alleging that certain interpolation had beer, made by the complainant in the petition of complaint after it had been filed in Court. It appears that the learned Magistrate had directed the complainant-opposite party to show cause. From the impugned order, dated the 19th June, 1973, it appears that, while transferring the case to another Magistrate for disposal, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also sent the said application, along with the show cause filed by the complainant. In my opinion, this was! not permissible in view of Sec. 476 of the Code. It was for the Magistrate before whom the said application had been filed to apply his mind to the facts and to consider whether it was a fit case in which complaint should be filed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.195 of the Code. Learned Counsel for the opposite party purported to justify the order of the learned Magistrate in view of Sec. 479-A. Sec. 479-A comes into play if some false evidence is given at any stage of a judicial proceeding, or false evidence is fabricated for being used at any stage of a judicial proceeding. Moreover, the learned Magistrate had already started the inquiry by asking the complainant to show cause, and as such he was proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 476, and then it was not open to him to transfer the said application for disposal to the Court to which the case had been transferred. The learned Magistrate should have himself applied his mind to find out as to whether it was a fit case in which a complaint should be filed under Sec.195 of the Code. - 11. The learned Magistrate should have himself applied his mind to find out as to whether it was a fit case in which a complaint should be filed under Sec.195 of the Code. - 11. In the result, the revision application is allowed in part as indicated above. Only that part of the order by which the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had transferred the case for disposal to another Magistrate, without issuing process in accordance with S 204 of the Code, is set aside. Similarly the order transferring the petition of petitioner No. 1 to the Magistrate to whom the main case had been transferred is also set aside. Now the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate should pass order for issuance of process for attendance of the accused. The petition filed by petitioner No. 1 will be considered and disposed of in due course. S.Ali Ahmad, J. 12 I agree.