Order.- In this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who was accused No. 1 in Criminal Case No. 3848 of 1975 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga, has challenged the order dated 25th October, 1975 passed by the said Magistrate in the said case ordering registration of a case under sections 448, 354 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him and eight others who are Respondents Nos. 3 to 10. 2. The few facts necessary may be narrated as follows: On 24th June, 1975, one Mahabalappa, the father of respondent No. 2, filed a private complaint before the said Magistrate who directed investigation by virtue of section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ summary report. But, respondent-2 undertook to prove the allegations made by her in the complaint. On that event happening, the learned Magistrate considered it fit to take cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 448, 354 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and, ultimately, recorded the statements of respondent-2 and two witnesses on oath. Thereafter, he heard the arguments on behalf of respondent-2 and passed an order which is impugned. 3. It is to be noted that in the complaint filed by respondent-2, there is an allegation in regard to the assault or use of criminal force punishable under section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. But the learned Magistrate has not thought it fit to take cognizance of this offence. 4. The allegations in the complaint are that at about 5-30 p.m. on 9th June, 1975 respondents 3 to 10 drove away the cattle from the cattle-shed of respondent-2 on the instigation of the petitioner and at that time some of the respondents 3 to 10 held the hands of respondent-2 and dragged her and her family members out and that too at the instance of the petitioner. To the same effect is the material found in the sworn statements of respondent-2 and her two witnesses. 5. Shri B.K. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that the Magistrate has not mentioned any reasons as to why he decided to issue process against the petitioner or as to why he decided to take cognizance of the offences aforementioned. 5. Shri B.K. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that the Magistrate has not mentioned any reasons as to why he decided to issue process against the petitioner or as to why he decided to take cognizance of the offences aforementioned. He, in this connection, argued that the Magistrate ought to have taken into consideration, before passing the order impugned, the material that had been collected by the police in their investigation as per the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that material would have disclosed that respondent-2 and her father had no cattle-shed at all and the cattle-shed belongs to the petitioner. 6. This contention raises a question of law as to what material a Magistrate is required to take into consideration after taking cognizance of an offence or offences alleged in a private complaint filed under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while dismissing a complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion, the point of law has been by now well settled. 7. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another1, the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that the defence has no locus standi in the progress of the investigation or enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as permitting the accused person to intervene in such enquiry or investigation would frustrate its very object and that under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and. in doing so he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or in an enquiry or investigation under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, he is not entitled to rely on any material besides the above-mentioned material. This principle has been followed by this Court in any number of decisions which, in my opinion, is unnecessary to narrate. 8. But, he is not entitled to rely on any material besides the above-mentioned material. This principle has been followed by this Court in any number of decisions which, in my opinion, is unnecessary to narrate. 8. In fact, the wordings of section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure go to show that while dismissing a complaint a Magistrate has to take into consideration the allegations in the complaint, the material recorded in the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses and the material available in the enquiry or investigation held under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it necessarily excludes the material collected by the police during their investigation by virtue of an order under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Shri B.K. Ramachandra Rao contended that the very object of directing an investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be frustrated if that material is not permitted to be made use of by a Magistrate to consider whether a private complaint should be dismissed or not. 10. This contention has, in my opinion, limited force. Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide any indication as to under what circumstances a Magistrate may consider it fit to refer a complaint for investigation by the police. But, the final report submitted by the police after investigating into the case under such circumstances would be of assistance to a Magistrate in making up his mind as to whether cognizance of the offence should or should not be taken. That is at the stage contemplated by section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only. When once a Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence, the provisions of section 200 onwards of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into operation and the power to dismiss a complaint after taking cognizance of the offences alleged therein will be available to a Magistrate only by virtue of section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. In view of the foregoing, that part of the contention of Shri B.K. Ramachandra Rao that the material that had been collected by the police during their investigation ought to have been at least borne in mind by the Magistrate before issuing process in this case, cannot be accepted. 12. 11. In view of the foregoing, that part of the contention of Shri B.K. Ramachandra Rao that the material that had been collected by the police during their investigation ought to have been at least borne in mind by the Magistrate before issuing process in this case, cannot be accepted. 12. Shri B.K. Ramachandra Rao attempted to contend that the petitioner is a ‘Matadhipathi’ and the allegations in the complaint and the material found in the sworn statements of the complainant and two witnesses would be sufficient to show that they are patently absurd and inherently improbable to hold that there is any ground to proceed against the accused. 13. It is evident that Shri B.K. Ramachandra Rao has attempted to make use of a principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Koujalgi and others1. 14. On perusing the allegations made in the complaint and the statements on oath of the complainant and her two witnesses, I am not inclined to agree with this contention of Shri B.K. Ramachandra Rao. The simple allegations are that the petitioner went along with other accused to the place in question and directed the other accused to enter into the cattle-shed of respondent No. 2, dragged her and her sister out and took away the cattle and the remaining accused persons acted accordingly. I do not find anything patently absurd or inherently improbable. Therefore, this reasoning has to fail. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed.