Order This Criminal Revision by the complainant Rangaiyammal is directed against the order of dismissal u/s.203, Crl.P.C., passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Bhavani, in P.R.C.No.16/83 instituted on a private complaint by the petitioner against the respondents for offences under Secs.148, 342, 447, 427 and 395, I.P.C. 2. This facts giving rise to the present revision briefly are: The petitioner presented a private complaint before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Bhavani against the respondents for the offences shown above, on the allegation that on 7.6.1983 at 6.00 P.M., the respondents herein trespassed into her lands, destroyed the standing crops, caused injuries to the prosecution witnesses, tied them with ropes and committed robbery. There had been long standing dispute between the petitioner on the one side and the respondents on the other. The dispute related to the enjoyment of the land, where the occurrence had taken place, and in respect of which civil proceedings were pending, and an injunction had been obtained by the petitioner restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession of the land. On the date of the occurrence, the respondents 1 to 3 assaulted the petitioner, hit her with stones and respondents 4 and 5 tied Lakshmi, daughter of the petitioner, and assaulted her and 2nd respondent beat Lakshmi and snatched her gold thali weighing six sovereigns and respondents 7, 8, 9 and 10 assaulted Easwari, daughter of the petitioner and respondents 3, 4, 11 and 12 assaulted Subramanian, son of the petitioner and all the respondents damaged standing crops (Kambu) and a shed located in the garden and also damaged the articles inside the shed. The petitioner presented a complaint to the local police but the same was not properly enquired into and no action was taken by the police. The petitioner, therefore presented a private complaint against the respondents before the 3udicial Second Class Magistrate, Bhavani, which was taken on file by him as P.R.C.No.16/83. Before issuing process to the respondents, the learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Sec.202, Cr.P.C., in the course of which, the complainant examined P.Ws.1 to 9 on her side and marked Exs.P1 to P5. P.Ws.1 to 7 speak about the occurrence, P.W.8 is the Medical Officer who examined P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and issued Exs.P1 to P3. P.W.9 is the Grade I Police Constable attached to Bhavani Police Station. P.Ws.1 to 7 speak about the occurrence, P.W.8 is the Medical Officer who examined P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and issued Exs.P1 to P3. P.W.9 is the Grade I Police Constable attached to Bhavani Police Station. On a consideration of the entire material, the learned Magistrate found that the evidence let in was not sufficient to issue process to the respondents for proceeding further in the matter, and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Sec.203, Cr.P.C. This revision is directed against the above order of dismissal. 3. Though the respondents have no right to be heard in the revision petition, this being a revision against the order of dismissal under Sec.203, Cr.P.C., since legal issues were involved, Thiru Kandaswami, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to the assist the Court. 4. Mr. G. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate could not be sustained since the Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction, that has been given to him under Sec.203, Cr.P.C., and had analysed the evidence, tested it in the light of the probabilities, and had arrived at a conclusion that the complainant had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and had therefore, dismissed the complaint under Sec.203, Cr.P.C. The Court acting u/sec.203, Cr.P.C., is merely expected to have a cursory glance on the evidence in order to satisfy itself, whether there is prima facie case warranting further proceedings and issuing process to the accused. A reading of the order of the dismissal passed by the learned Magistrate would disclose that he has meticulously judged the evidence and weighed the same in a sensitive balance and has thus overstepped the limits of his discretion. Thiru G. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed certain decisions on this aspect to which I shall refer to presently. 5. The question that arises for determination is whether the order of the learned Magistrate suffers from illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 6. It is well-settled law that under Sec.203, Cr.P.C., all that the Court is required to do is merely to find out whether a prime facie case is made out and whether there is evidence to support the allegations made in the complaint. Considerations like delay in giving the complaint, proof beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt, cannot come into play at that stage. Considerations like delay in giving the complaint, proof beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt, cannot come into play at that stage. Useful reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Kewal Krishnan v. Suraj Bhan Kewal Krishnan v. Suraj Bhan 1980 Crl.L.J. 1271:A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1780 wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: “…“.At the stage of Secs.203 and 204, Crl.P.C. in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, all that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Secs.200 and 202, Crl.P.C., there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is “sufficient ground for proceeding” against the accused. At this stage the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial Court. The standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinising the evidence is not the same as the on which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges.” Again in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh 1977 MLJ.(Crl.) 538: (1978)1 S.C.R. 257 :(1977)2 S.C.J. 376:A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018 it has been laid down as follows: “It the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in the cross-examination and rebutted by defence evidence if any cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.” In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose 1964 MLJ.(Crl.) 85:A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1430:(1964)1 S.C.J. 202 while dealing with the nature of the scrutiny under Sec.202(1), Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court has observed that at that stage. “……What the Magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction.” It would be unnecessary to swell this judgment with similar pronouncements of the Supreme Court on various occasions. “……What the Magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction.” It would be unnecessary to swell this judgment with similar pronouncements of the Supreme Court on various occasions. Suffice it to refer to one decision in D.N. Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal D.N. Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal (1972)3 S.C.C. 414 :A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1607 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “……..It is true that the Magistrate is not debarred at this stage from going into the merits of the evidence produced by the complaint. But the object of such consideration of the merits of the case at this stage could only be to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further or not…..” 7. On a consideration of the various pronouncements referred to above, it is clear that Sec.203, Cr.P.C., is merely intended to prevent issuing of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. Truth or otherwise of the allegations made cannot be adjudged. The correctness or the probability or improbability of evidence on disputed grounds cannot be determined at this stage. This probable defence inferences from delay in laying the complaint, the benefit of exceptions to specific provisions of law are beyond the scope of Sec.203, Cr.P.C. 8. I shall now test the correctness of the order of the learned Magistrate in the light of the principles indicated above. The learned Magistrate has chosen to dismiss the complaint u/sec.203, Cr.P.C. on the grounds indicated in paragraphs 5 to 12 of the order. The first and foremost reason given by the learned Magistrate is that there is an inordinate delay in the petitioner giving the complaint to the police station. According to the learned Magistrate, the police station was only 5 k.mrs. away but the complaint had been laid only on the next day, that is, after an interval of 13 hours and this delay should given room for false implication or atleast an exaggerated version of the occurrence. Under Sec.203, Cr.P.C., considerations like delay and the inference from unexplained delay cannot come into play. 9. away but the complaint had been laid only on the next day, that is, after an interval of 13 hours and this delay should given room for false implication or atleast an exaggerated version of the occurrence. Under Sec.203, Cr.P.C., considerations like delay and the inference from unexplained delay cannot come into play. 9. In the subsequent paragraphs of the order the learned Magistrate goes on to compare the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and has indicated on what aspects their evidence do not corroborate. It is seen that even the contradictions which the learned Magistrate has chosen to pick out from the evidence of these witnesses are very trivial. They cannot be described as self-contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy. So as to warrant a dismissal of the complaint under Sec.203, Cr.P.C. On the contrary, the learned Magistrate has very meticulously judged, the evidence in a sensitive balance and has held that the charges are not proved and that the charges cannot be accepted as true. It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate in the same strain has discussed the medical evidence of P.W.8, compared it with the evidence of the injured eye witnesses and has pointed out minor omissions, which according to him have rendered the evidence of the complaint's witnesses untrustworthy. Finally in the last paragraph the learned Magistrate winds up the discussion by holding that because the petitioner had not given the complaint at the police station immediately and because of the other reasons indicated in the order, the petitioner had failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt and he was therefore dismissing her complaint u/s.203, Cr.P.C. It is quite obvious from the final observations of the learned Magistrate that he was not dealing with the case as he is required to do u/s.203, Cr.P.C., but he had been dealing with it as he would deal at the time of pronouncing the final judgment after trial. This is directly opposed to the various pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to supra. P.Ws.1 to 7 speak about the occurrence and among them P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are examined by the Medical Officer P.W.8. Exs.P1 to P3 have been issued by P.W.8. Certain injuries have been found on these witnesses and they given evidence as to what had happened. Their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5, 6 and 7. P.Ws.1 to 7 speak about the occurrence and among them P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are examined by the Medical Officer P.W.8. Exs.P1 to P3 have been issued by P.W.8. Certain injuries have been found on these witnesses and they given evidence as to what had happened. Their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5, 6 and 7. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the above material does not disclose prima facie case supporting the allegations made in the complaint so as to warrant issuance of process to the accused and proceeding further in the matter. The learned Magistrate has over-stepped the limits of his discretion and jurisdiction. The order of the learned Magistrate therefore is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned, Court for fresh disposal according to law. In case the same Presiding Officer continues in the same Court, it shall be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall send it any other competent Magistrate. It is made clear that the Court which will deal with the case, would keep itself free, uninfluenced by any observations regarding the facts made by this Court in this order. B.S. ----- Revision allowed.