Judgment V.P.Singh, J. 1. This application under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 29.4.1985 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, taking cognizance against the petitioner for an offence under sections 380, 454, 500 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner is the father of the deceased son, S.M. Azhar. He was working in the Eastern Railway, Dhanbad, as second fire man. He died on 7.5.1985. The complainant is the second legally married wife of late S.M. Azhar. She and her husband along with their children were occupying the Railway quarter allotted to them vide Qr. No. A/69, in Matkoria Rly. Colony, since June, 1984. The first wife, the father (the petitioner herein) and the children from the first wife were living separately because of bad relations. After the murder of her husband on 7.5.1985, the complainant was continuing to live in the said quarter along with the children until 23.5.1985. In the morning of 23rd May, 1985, the complainant and the children had gone to her mothers place. While she returned back on 25.5.1985 she found that a different lock had been put in the house and her lock was found broken. She along with her mother approached the police station and lodged an information with the police but the police refused to help them and asked her to break open the lock. She expressed her fear to the police and did not like to take law in their own hands. Further, she remained helpless and the police did not help her in this matter. When she again visited the said quarter on 26.5.1985, they found that the said quarter had been occupied by the petitioner and other members of his family. She tried to enter into the house but she was prevented by the petitioner and was threatened to be killed if she would make any attempt to enter into the house. She was shocked at the behaviour of the petitioner. When she requested him that she may be allowed to take her belongings from the quarter, which were worth Rs. sixty to seventy thousand, she was abused by the petitioner in most filthy language and she was told that the articles did not belong to her and the petitioner is the owner of these articles. When she requested him that she may be allowed to take her belongings from the quarter, which were worth Rs. sixty to seventy thousand, she was abused by the petitioner in most filthy language and she was told that the articles did not belong to her and the petitioner is the owner of these articles. Left with no remedy, she complained to the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner. The complaint was filed on 29.5.1985. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant taken on solemn affirmation and the documents filed on her behalf, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found that a prima facie case under sections 454, 380, 500 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, cognizance of the said offence was taken and summons were issued to the petitioner for his appearance. Mr. Debi Prasad appearing for the petitioner contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, sec. 210 of the Code is attracted and the facts alleged do not constitute the offence charged. 3. Sec. 210 of the Code-is a new provision. It prescribes a procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and also the police investigation in respect of the same. Sec. 210 reads as follows: "(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case) it is made to appear to the Magistrate during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigations. 4. Here in the present case it does not appear from the record of this case that during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, an investigation by the police was in progress in relation to the offence which was the subject-matter of enquiry or trial held by the Magistrate. Those facts were not pointed out from the record of the case even during the course of argument. Those facts were not pointed out from the record of the case even during the course of argument. Therefore, the basic fact to attract the provision laid down under sec. 210 of the Code is not available. In the facts and circumstances of the present case therefore, the first contention must be rejected. 5. The next contention that the facts do not constitute the offence charged is equally without any merit. The question is beyond controversy and has been finally settled in a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawwa V/s. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi. Relying on its earlier decision in Chandradeo Singh V/s. Prakash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another and in the case of Vadilal Panchal V/s. Battatraya Dulalji. Their Lordships held: "It would thus be clear from the two decisions of this Court that the scope of the enquiry under sec. 202 of the Code is extremely limited-limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in complaint- (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether the prima facie case for issue of process has been made out and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In fact it is well settled that in proceedings under sec. 202 the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not." 6. In view of the said decision and the principle laid therein I find no infirmity in the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence charged. 7. It is well settled that once the Magistrate has, after satisfying himself prima facie that there is sufficient material for proceeding against the accused issued process against him and the Magistrate has exercised its discretion, it is not for the High Court or even for the Supreme Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint if proved would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry under sec. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry under sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 1947). Relying on the said decision the Supreme Court in Hareram Satpathy V/s. Tikaram Agarwala and others held: "As the Magistrate is restricted to finding out whether there was a prima fade case or not for proceeding against the accused and cannot enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case and the scope of the revisional jurisdiction is very limited the High Court cannot launch on a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merits. " 8. In this view this Court cannot launch on a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merit. 9. This dismissed is accordingly application.