Order.- Crl. Revision Case No. 101 of 1974 has been preferred by the complainant against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot at Cuddalore, in Crl.R.P.No. 4 of 1973 on his file, dismissing the said revision petition preferred by the complainant against the order passed by the learned District Magistrate (J), Cuddalore, whereby he dismissed the complaint as against accused 2 and 4 and took the case on file as against accused 1 and 3 in C.C.No. 261 of 1973. Crl.M.P. No. 3795 of 1973 has been filed by the first accused, against whom the case was taken on file for offences under sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 261 of 1973. 2. In this order, for the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the revision-petitioner who is the respondent in Crl.M.P. No. 3795 of 1973, as the complainant; to the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No. 3795 of 1973 as accused 1 and to the respondents in the revision petition as accused 2 and 4. 3. Accused 3 in C.C.No. 261 of 1973, who is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Tindivanam, against whom the learned District Magistrate has taken the case on file along with accused, 1, has not preferred any revision petition or Other proceedings. But, in the interests of justice, I issued summons to accused 3 (Chinnaswami) who appeared before me in person and presented his case. 4. The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant preferred a private complaint before the District Magistrate (J), South Arcot, against the above said four persons (who are accused 1 to 4 as described in the complaint), on the allegation that they committed various offences punishable under sections 166, 211, 406, 420 and. 447, Indian Penal Code. The complainant, according to the allegations in the complaint, purchased an oil expeller from one Rajamanickam of Tindivanam and removed the machinery to his place at Panruti. But, the said machinery had already been given as security to accused 1 who is said to have advanced moneys to the vendor Rajamanickam. 447, Indian Penal Code. The complainant, according to the allegations in the complaint, purchased an oil expeller from one Rajamanickam of Tindivanam and removed the machinery to his place at Panruti. But, the said machinery had already been given as security to accused 1 who is said to have advanced moneys to the vendor Rajamanickam. After coming to know of the sale, accused 1 consulted his lawyer accused 2 and preferred a petition against the complainant under section 418, Indian Penal Code, before the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam (accused 4) who forwarded the same after making an endorsement to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (accused 3) for necessary action. Accused No. 3 registered the complaint and took up investigation. He came to the premises of the complainant along with accused 1 and 2 and seized the properties under a search-list. The complainant on 23rd March, 1973 proceeded to Tindivanam with his lawyer and witnesses 1 and 2 mentioned in the complaint and approached accused 3 for the release of his properties. Then, they approached accused 4 at his residence and requested him to deliver the properties seized from the complainant. The further allegations are that accused 4, who agreed at the outset, subsequently went back and asked the complainant to get an order from the Court. Thereupon, the complainant got an order of release of the properties from the learned Sub-Magistrate, Tindivanam, on 5th April, 1973 in Cr.M.Ps. Nos. 389 and 390 of 1973. Accused 3 prepared a list of the available properties in the Police Station and handed over the same to the complainant after taking his signature in the list. It is the case of the complainant that certain articles were found missing and they were not returned to him, and that the first accused, under the advice of the second accused unlawfully took away the remaining parts of the expeller in order to make a wrongful loss to the complainant. Thus, according to the complainant, accused 1 to 4 have committed the offences aforementioned. The learned District Magistate, after recording the sworn statements, took the case on file only as against accused 1 and 3 for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code thus dismissing the complains as against the Advocate-second accused and the Assistant Superintendent of Police — accused 4. The learned District Magistate, after recording the sworn statements, took the case on file only as against accused 1 and 3 for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code thus dismissing the complains as against the Advocate-second accused and the Assistant Superintendent of Police — accused 4. Aggrieved against this dismissal of the complaint as against accused 2 and 4, the complainant preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed it, confirming the order of the District Magistrate. Hence this revision petition by the complainant. Accused 1 has filed Cr. M.P.No. 3795 of 1973 for quashing the order of the District Magistrate taking the case on file as against him. 5. The main point raised by the complainant before me is that the order dismissing the complaint against accused 2 and 4 cannot be sustained since the learned Magistrate has not given any reason, which is a pre-requisite for making such an order. In support of this, Mr. Balasubramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner, relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose1, wherein the Supreme Court has observed, that where the Magistrate has dismissed the complaint without giving reasons as required by section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, the error is of a kind which goes to the root of the matter. It is possible to say that giving of reasons is a prerequisite for making an order of dismissal of a complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of the reasons would make the order a nullity. The facts of the above-cited case related to an offence of murder by shooting. In that case, the first information was lodged before the police, who undertook the investigation, but ultimately submitted a final report at a later stage. A private complaint was filed against the final report of the police by the complainant who prayed for processes to be issued against certain other persons on the allegation that those persons had murdered the deceased and on the further allegation that the first information report laid before the police was false. After examining Mahendra Singh, the complainant, on oath and looking at the police records, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate asked the I Class Magistrate to hold a judicial inquiry into the allegations made and to submit a report to him. After examining Mahendra Singh, the complainant, on oath and looking at the police records, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate asked the I Class Magistrate to hold a judicial inquiry into the allegations made and to submit a report to him. During the pendency of the inquiry, one Chandra Deo Singh filed a complaint stating that respondent No. 1 had fired a shot at the deceased at point-biack range and thereby murdered him. After examining on oath, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate referred the matter again to the First Class Magistrate for inquiry and report. The First Class Magistrate submitted a report stating that a prima facie case has been’ made against the three persons and on the same date he made another report with reference to the complaint made by Chandra Deo, to the effect that no prima facie case had been made out against respondent No. 1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate:, on seeing the second report, dismissed the complaint of Chandra Deo Singh, without assigning any reason. It was under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the High Court -was in error in setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge and made the above observations. Their Lordships referred to the observations made in Willie (William) Stanley v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, which read thus: “In all the cases, the only question is about prejudice”. Then, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that in Chandra Deo’s case2, the error is of a kind which goes to the root of the matter, and have further observed: “Even assuming, however, that the rule laid down in Stanley’s case1 applies to such a case, prejudice is writ large on the face of the order”. 6. Thus, it is clear that there should be prejudice caused by the order of dismissal in order that it can be effectively challenged. 7. At the same time, I may state that it is very regrettable that the learned District Magistrate is quite ignorant of the elementary principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that giving of reasons is a prerequiste for making an order of dismissal of a complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. 7. At the same time, I may state that it is very regrettable that the learned District Magistrate is quite ignorant of the elementary principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that giving of reasons is a prerequiste for making an order of dismissal of a complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, the order of dismissal of the complaint as against accused 2 and 4 is only an implied one since the Magistrate has made an order simply stating “Taken on file against accused 1 and 3 under sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, and posted to 5th July, 1973. Issue summons to accused 1 and 3”. 8. In spite of the above defect in this case, I repeatedly asked Mr. Balasubramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant, whether any prejudice has been caused to the complainant on account of the non-mentioning of the reasons by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the complaint. But, he is not able to mention any grievance or prejudice caused to the complainant. In fact, the averments made in the complaint are quite clear that there cannot be any prejudice. But, on the other hand, the averments made in the complaint do not at all make out any case against the respondents in this revision petition. The learned Sessions Judge, before whom a revision was filed, has given various reasons in support of the order of dismissal passed by the learned District: Magistrate. Of course, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot rectify the irregularity committed by the District Magistrate. But, in the interests of justice and in view of the fact that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-complainant by the order of dismissal and that there is absolutely no case made out against the respondents-accused 2 and 4, I feel that it is not worthwhile to send the case back to the District Magistrate to make a further enquiry, by quashing the order of dismissal. There is one more reason for not interfering in this revision petition. There is already a petition Cr. M.P. No. 3795 of 1973 by accused-1, against whom and accused-3 the case is taken on file, for quashing the proceedings before the District Magistrate. As stated supra, I issued summons to accused 3 and heard him in person. There is one more reason for not interfering in this revision petition. There is already a petition Cr. M.P. No. 3795 of 1973 by accused-1, against whom and accused-3 the case is taken on file, for quashing the proceedings before the District Magistrate. As stated supra, I issued summons to accused 3 and heard him in person. After hearirg the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition and accused-3 in person, I feel that the allegations made in the complaint do not at all constitute the necessary ingredients to make out a prima facie case, for the offences under sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code against accused 1 and 3. Therefore, when the proceedings against accused 1 and 3 are liable to be quashed, sending the complaint back as against accused 2 and 4 would be meaningless. It is open to the complainant-revision-petitioner to take any civil action against the concerned people to make good the loss, if any, sustained by him. 9. With these observations, I dismiss Cr. R.C.No. 101 of 1974 and allow Cr.M.P. No. 3795 of 1973 and quash the entire proceedings C.C.No. 261 of 1973 on the file of the District Magistrate (J), South Arcot, standing against accused 1 and 3.