Judgment :- 1. The accused in C. C. 189 of 1980 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Palghat seeks the quashing of the proceedings, under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2. The complaint alleges that on 5-4-80 the accused and her husband Krishnan Nair met the complainant and offered to exchange a Vauxall car worth Rs. 4000/- for a Plymouth car belonging to the complainant. The Plymouth car was valued at Rs. 20,000/-. The accused and her husband agreed to pay Rs 16,000/- in ten days. Vauxall car and the papers were delivered. Plymouth car was also delivered, though the papers were not delivered. The accused failed to pay the balance amount within 10 days. It appears that Krishnan Nair died on 24-4-80 The complainant grew suspicious and met the accused and demanded payment of money on several occasions. But the accused was putting forward one excuse or the other and making vague promise. Finally the complainant asked for the return of the car even if the money is not paid. The accused told the complainant that under no circumstances will the money be paid and the car returned even if it be that the car will have to be dismantled These allegations in the complaint are followed by a further averment 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused would contend that the allegations regarding the facts made in the complaint, though not ail of them are true but assuming them to be true for the purpose of these proceedings, are not sufficient to imply all the ingredients necessary for an offence of breach of trust under S.420 IPC. In particular the learned counsel was stressing that no facts have been alleged in the complaint from which "mens rea" could be gathered. Learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, contended that the facts alleged in the complaint if accepted at their face value are capable of enabling the court to draw an inference regarding existence of mens rea and the matter should be left for adjudication at the trial stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner read before me a copy of the sworn statement recorded by the learned trial Magistrate of the complainant under S.200 of the Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner read before me a copy of the sworn statement recorded by the learned trial Magistrate of the complainant under S.200 of the Code. The sworn statement refers practically to all the allegations of facts contained in the complaint But the sentence in the complaint regarding mens rea extracted above is absent in the sworn statement. It is further argued by him that at that stage the Magistrate should have applied his mind on the question whether cognizance was to be taken or not. The learned Magistrate should not have been guided by the complaint but should have been guided by the statement on oath of the complainant and absence of such an allegation regarding mens rea in the sworn statement, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, would clinch the issue in favour of the petitioner. 4. S 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. This rule has two exceptions contemplated in the proviso to S.200. These two exceptions relate to complaints filed by a public servant in the discharge of his duties or where the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under S.192. In these two cases the sworn statement of the complainant need not be taken. S.203 reads thus: "203. If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under S.202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, be shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doings Where the Magistrate does not dismiss the complaint under S.203 of the Code, he may issue process under S.204 of the Code. 5. The scheme and purport of S.200, 203 and 204 of the Code are not sufficient to show that the averments in the complaint are not to be looked into for the purpose of taking a decision either to dismiss a complaint under S.203 or to issue process under S 204 of the Code. 5. The scheme and purport of S.200, 203 and 204 of the Code are not sufficient to show that the averments in the complaint are not to be looked into for the purpose of taking a decision either to dismiss a complaint under S.203 or to issue process under S 204 of the Code. This is made clear by the reference in S.203 to the words "if any" occurring after the words "statement on oath of the complainant". This makes it clear that complaint is also, at any rate, one of the records to be looked into for the purpose of taking a decision under S.203 and 204 of the Code It cannot be said that Court can look into the sworn statement only and not the complaint itself. 6. This conclusion is fortified by a reading of the judgment in Hari Prasad Chamaria v Bishun Kumar Surekha (1973 (2) SC Cases 823) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner for another purpose. That is a case where the High Court in exercise of power under S.561-A of the Code (old Code) quashed the complaint on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the mens rea necessary under S 420 IPC A reading of the judgment shows that no reference at all was made to the sworn statement in that case. It may be noted that the complainant in that case was not a person falling within the two exceptions contemplated in S.200 of the Code. It is clear that the basic material to which consideration of the court must be adverted is the complaint. This is not to say that the sworn statement is to be ignored That also has to be taken into consideration. But in considering the averments in the complaint and the averments in the sworn statement, court must always bear in mind that complaint is drafted normally with the assistance of persons trained in law and legal procedure, while sworn statement is the record of statement made by the complainant in Court without any such assistance. It may be that the complainant may not realise the importance of specifically referring to the aspect of mens rea in his sworn statement. That does not mean that the mention of mens rea in the complaint can be ignored. 7. It may be that the complainant may not realise the importance of specifically referring to the aspect of mens rea in his sworn statement. That does not mean that the mention of mens rea in the complaint can be ignored. 7. A reading of the complaint in this case and in particular the sentence extracted by me above is sufficient to show that the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged do find a place in the complaint. It cannot therefore be said that the proceedings deserve to be quashed. Even otherwise T do not think at this stage it is open to this Court to come to the conclusion that the facts alleged in the complaint must necessarily preclude the existence of mens rea necessary for the offence alleged. It may be that the facts alleged may ultimately lead only to an inference of a breach of contract remediable by an action in civil court. It may be in the light of the evidence which may be adduced later on the facts may establish the mens rea necessary for the offence. That is a matter which has to be decided when evidence has been let in. It is sufficient to note at this stage that the facts alleged are also capable of leading to the inference relating to mens rea, though they need not necessarily lead to such an inference in all cases and under all circumstances. Exercise of inherent powers by this Court can be made only in rare and exceptional cases. I am not satisfied that this is one of those cases where such exercise is called for. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Issue carbon copies to the parties on payment of the requisite charges. Dismissed.