Judgment S. C. Mookherji, J. 1. This is an application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order, dated 23-8-1986 passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Palamau, by which he took cognizance of the offences under sections 147, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and issued processes, and there after transferred the case to the court of the Sub-divisional judicial Magistrate for trial. The point raised in this case before this court lies within a very narrow compass. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the cognizance taken is bad in law in view of wrong exercise of powers by the chief Judicial Magistrate under the provision of Sec.202 of the Code of criminal Procedure. 3. It is needless to state the facts of the case in detail. Only it may be pointed out that the opposite party No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners for having committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the incident allegedly taken on 17-7-1986. On 19-7-1986 the Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and directed an enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal procedure by Shri G. C Gupta, Judicial Magistrate of the same place. In his enquiry report the Judicial Magistrate held that a prima facie case under sections 147, 379 and 426, I. P. C. has been made out. This enquiry report was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and he took cognizance of the offences as aforesaid. This order has been challenged by the petitioners. 4. The only point that has been raised is that in view of the present provision contained in Sec.202 of Criminal Procedure Code the Chief Judicial magistrate had no jurisdiction to order an enquiry by another Magistrate. According to the learned counsel, if the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not satisfied on the allegations made in the petition of complaint and for that purpose an enquiry was felt necesssary, then the same should have been done by himself or it could have been entrusted to any other person, as envisaged in Sec.202 cr. According to the learned counsel, if the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not satisfied on the allegations made in the petition of complaint and for that purpose an enquiry was felt necesssary, then the same should have been done by himself or it could have been entrusted to any other person, as envisaged in Sec.202 cr. P. C. In support of this contention a decision of this court reported in i. L. R. Vol.57 page 903 (Jitan Tiwary V/s. State of Bihar and another), has been referred to, wherein a similar question arose and their Lordships observed that according to the scheme of Sec.202, Cr. P. C. , if a Magistrate does not feel persuaded to issue processes against an accused on receipt of the complaint and on his examination on solemn affirmation wants to remove his doubt whether there was a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not and if he decides to hold an enquiry into the matter and not to get it investigated, then that enquiry has got to be conducted by the said Magistrate himself and he cannot get it enquired into by any other Magistrate as he could under the old Code. This legal position has not been controverted by the other side, but it has been contended that on this ground alone the entire proceeding should not be quashed, rather the irregularities committed by the Magistrate, should be rectified with a direction to the court below to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. There appears much substance in this contention. 5. It is true, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the chief Judicial Magistrate passed under Sec.202, Cr. P. C. is manifestly wrong and cannot be allowed to stand, but while setting aside the said order, I propose to remit the case back to the learned Magistrate with a direction that it will be open to him to hold an enquiry in the matter or to get the matter investigated, as he thinks1 proper, by a police officer or such other person and then to proceed with the case in accordance with law, and it is ordered accordingly. The result is that the application is allowed. The order dated 23-8-1986 and the entire proceeding started against the petitioners in pursuance. The result is that the application is allowed. The order dated 23-8-1986 and the entire proceeding started against the petitioners in pursuance. of the said order are hereby quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, palamau, as indicated above for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Application allowed.