JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-12-1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar whereby he has, under section 203 of the criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code) dismissed the petitioners complaint, filed on 18-10-1982. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, at 9. 00 p. m. on 19-8-1982 when he was goint to a film show along with his friends, the non-applicants surrounded them on the way and some of them indulged in filthy abuses and marpit. He reported the matter to the police and when no action was taken, he filed the criminal complaint in question in respect of offences under sections 323, 294 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3. ) A perusal of the order sheet dated 18-10-1982 reveals that the learned trial magistrate without taking cognizance had ordered investigation under section 156 of the Code, with a direction that if cognizable offence is made out after full investigation, challan be filed or else final report be submitted by 23-12-1982. ( 4. ) ON 23-12-1982, recording that report from the police is to the effect that challan has not been filed as no offence is made out, the learned Magistrate ordered the complaint to be filed. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that under section 202 of the code the Magistrate is, no doubt, empowered to direct investigation to be made by a police officer for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, but on investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code it was certainly wrong on his part to surrender his discretion wholly to that of the investigating police officer. ( 6. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 7. ) SECTION 200 of the Code requires that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall examine the complainant and the witnesses present if any. Section 202 ibid authorises a Magistrate, if he thinks fit, to postpone issue of process and direct an investigation. In the instant case investigation was directed not under section 202 of the Code but under section 156 (3) ibid ( 8. Section 202 ibid authorises a Magistrate, if he thinks fit, to postpone issue of process and direct an investigation. In the instant case investigation was directed not under section 202 of the Code but under section 156 (3) ibid ( 8. ) SECTION 203 of the Code under which the impugned order has been passed reads thus:- "if, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. " In the instant case it is clear that the Magistrate did not take cognizance of the alleged offences as contemplated under section 200 of the Code. He did not record the statement of the complainant or his witnesses. On receipt of the aforesaid result of the investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code the learned Magistrate could not outright order that the complaint be filed which amounts to its dismissal under section 203 of the Code. The Magistrate had to relegate himself to the stage of section 200 of the Code as pointed out in the decision in Chikka-Veerappas case 1977 (I) Cr. LJ. 82. Thereafter it was open to him to take recourse to section 202 of the Code and direct an inquiry for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint and as pointed out in vadilal Panchals case AIR 1960 SC 1113 it permissible on the material available, even a plea of self-defence might be considered in favour of the accused. ( 9. ) THE mandatory provision under section 203 of the Code requires that the dismissal of the complaint has to be with a reasoned order where the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. Absence of reasons is not a curable irregularity. The error goes to the root of the matter and makes the order a nullity. In this connection the decision in Chandra Deos case AIR 1963 SC 1430 is pertinent. The impugned order does not show that the learned Magistrate himself formed any such opinion and as urged, appears to have completely surrendered his discretion in the matter. Such an order cannot be allowed to stand. In this connection the decision in Chandra Deos case AIR 1963 SC 1430 is pertinent. The impugned order does not show that the learned Magistrate himself formed any such opinion and as urged, appears to have completely surrendered his discretion in the matter. Such an order cannot be allowed to stand. The revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 10. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and as provided under section 398 of the Code it is directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any Magistrate subordinate to him, shall make further inquiry into the complaint and shall dispose it of according to law. The record be sent back immediately. Order accordingly.