JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This revision application is preferred by the original complainant challenging the order dated 6th February, 1979 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay in case No. 3/Misc. of 1979 dismissing the complainant in question filed against the accused Respondent No. 1 herein, under the provisions of sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. After hearing Mr. T.D. Joshi, the learned Advocate for the petitioner complainant and Mr. M.K. Cheria, the learned Advocate for the accused, Respondent No. 1, as also Mr. K. Chopra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. This is a case where a written complaint was filed against the accused under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Without examining the complainant and without examining the complainants witness, who was present in the Court, the learned trial Magistrate has straightaway dismissed the complaint by the impugned order. Mr. Joshi, the learned Advocate for the complainant makes a serious grievance in this behalf contending that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was not warranted and was otherwise not justified in law. I find considerable substance in this contention. 3. Under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure : "A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any upon oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate." There are two provisions to the aforesaid section 200 but neither of them are relevant to the present case. A plain reading of section 200 extracted above shows that it is the duty of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine the complainant and witnesses present, if any, and to reduce the substance of such examination in writing which shall then be signed by the complainant and the witnesses as also by the Magistrate. In this particular case the aforesaid section has been observed in its breach. The complainant has stated in affidavit before this Court that the Magistrate did not examine him nor did the Magistrate examine the complainants witness one Gograj who was present in Court. In this particular case the aforesaid section has been observed in its breach. The complainant has stated in affidavit before this Court that the Magistrate did not examine him nor did the Magistrate examine the complainants witness one Gograj who was present in Court. If this be the position of facts and if the law be as mentioned hereinabove then conclusion must follow that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Cheria, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused, however, submitted that there has in fact been no misrepresentation in this case and that there is absence of essential ingredients of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the partnership firm Sitaram Co. was in existence even at the time when the loan in question was advanced other to the accused and the said partnership firm is even now in existence. He has in this behalf relied upon the affidavit of the accused filed in this Court along with two certificates annexed thereto. This, however, is not the stage to consider this submission or contention of the learned Advocate for the accused. It is the duty of the learned trial Magistrate to proceed with the complaint filed by the complainant in accordance with law and in the process the accused would also be entitled to put forth his full submissions and contentions before the learned trial Magistrate to pass such appropriate order on the complaint as he may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Suffice to state at this stage, that upon a bare reading of the complaint as it is, this was not a case where an order of dismissal, as of the nature passed, could in any manner be said to be legally justified. 5. It also cannot be overlooked that particular transaction may in a given case partake the character both of a civil dispute as also of a criminal offence. This is not to say that the transaction in the present case necessarily falls within both these classes. It is ultimately for the learned trial Magistrate himself to a proper conclusion in that behalf one way or the other after following the procedure in law laid down. The nature of the impugned dismissal of the complainant is ex facie bad in law. 6. In the result this revision application is allowed. It is ultimately for the learned trial Magistrate himself to a proper conclusion in that behalf one way or the other after following the procedure in law laid down. The nature of the impugned dismissal of the complainant is ex facie bad in law. 6. In the result this revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 6th February, 1979 is set aside and quashed. Complaint in question is restored. Matter is sent back to the learned trial Magistrate for proceeding further with the complaint in question on its own merits and in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute. ------