Judgment Muneshwari Sahay, J. 1. -this application is directed against an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, dismissing the petitioners complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. One Mukhal Hajra was murdered on the 20th November, 1976, at about 7 p. m. The first information report about the occurrence was lodged by his son on the following day. The petitioner and some others were named as accused in the first information report. A case was registered on the basis of the first information report and investigation followed. In course of the investigation, it is said that the accusations against the accused persons were not established. On the contrary, the investigation disclosed that opposite party nos.2 and 3, Hiralal Singh and Chandrika Pandey, had actually committed the murder of the deceased. The petitioner alleges that the Deputy superintendent of Police, who had supervised the investigation had expressly held so and, in fact, he had assured the petitioner that charge-sheet would be submitted in the case against opposite party nos.2 and 3. No charge-sheet was, however, submitted in that case against anyone. A final report was submitted on the 30th August, 1978 which was accepted by the learned Magistrate on he 9th September, 1978. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint on the 21st October, 1978, in which he alleged that opposite party nos.2 to 8 had participated in the murder of the deceased. The petitioner was examined on solemn affirmation and he produced six witnesses, including the widow of the deceased, to support the allegations which had been made in the petition of complaint. The witnesses had supported the petitioners allegations in his statement before the learned magistrate The petitioner alleged that the son of the deceased, who had lodged information about the occurrence, naming the petitioner and others as accused was also examined before a Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure, soon after he had lodged the first information, report. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the statement made by the son of the deceased on the 26th November, 1976, before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The occurrence, it may be recalled, had taken place on the 20th November, 1976. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the statement made by the son of the deceased on the 26th November, 1976, before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The occurrence, it may be recalled, had taken place on the 20th November, 1976. In that statement as well the son of the deceased had expressly stated that he had been asked to implicate the prtitioner and his family members by opposite party nos.2 and 3 and that he had been threatened with murder, if he declined to do so. It was at their instance, therefore, that he had implicated the petitioner amongst the persons who committed the crime. 4. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the complaint on two grounds. Firstly, he was of the opinion that there was an inordinate delay in filing of the complaint and the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay was not convincing. Secondly, the learned Magistrate observed that the motive which was being alleged by the petitioner for the murder of the deceased was also not satisfactory. Therefore, even though the petitioners witnesses had supported the accusations the petitioner had made against opposite party Nos 2 to 8, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition of complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was undoubtedly some delay in the filing of the complaint, but the delay was sufficiently explained. The explanation was that as an investigation was going on in the crime in which the petitioner himself figured as an accused. There was some hesitation on the part of the petitioner to file any complaint during the pendency of the investigation. It is also said that the investigation had clearly disclosed that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 were mainly responsible for the murder of the deceased, a fact, which was to be found even in the supervision note of the deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner, therefore, was expecting that possibly action might be taken by the police in the case which hey were investigating and a chrge-sheet might be submitted against the real culprits as it was no charge-sheet was submitted in the case. The petitioner felt aggrieved, when a final report submitted in that case was accepted by the learned Magistrate and, soon thereafter, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed the complaint. The petitioner felt aggrieved, when a final report submitted in that case was accepted by the learned Magistrate and, soon thereafter, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed the complaint. I think, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay caused in filing of the complaint petition was understandable. 6. Therefore the complaint could not be dismissed merely on the ground that there had been an inordinate delay in filing of the same. Learned Magistrate, of course also referred to the alleged motive for the crime, and, as, in his opinion, the motive, which was being suggested by the petitioner, was not convincing, he considered that as well as to be a ground justifying the dismissal of the complaint. In my opinion the learned Magistrate had referred on this question as well. All that the learned Magistrate was required to find at this stage was, if there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons, and not if the accused persons were guilty or innocent. That could be determined only at the trial. Therefore when there was direct evidence in the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate showing the complicity of opposite party Nos.2 to 8 in the crime, the learned Magistrate should not have allowed his decision to be influenced by his view on the question of motive. 7. The learned Magistrate has not said anything as to why the statements of the witnesses made before him should be discarded. As pointed out, one of the witnesses so examined before him was the widow of the deceased. It has been pointed out to me further that even the son of the deceased, who was the informant in the case instituted against the petitioner and others, had expressly admitted only six days after the lodging of the first information report that he had accused the petitioner and his family members in the crime at the instance of Opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the petitioners accusation against the Opposite paity was not developed as a result of an afterthought. 8. I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds mentioned by him in the impugned order, and the order of dismissal has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds mentioned by him in the impugned order, and the order of dismissal has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the result, therefore, this application is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate dated the 19th January, 1979, dismissing the complaint, is set aside and the case is sent back to the Chief judicial Magistrate, Motihari, for further inquiry into the complaint in accordance with law. Application allowed.