ORDER: 1. Petitioner who describes himself as a Director of ‘Loka Chalanam Janakiya Sangham’, challenges an order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam, dismissing the complaint in C.C.No.8 of 1983. 2. Out of his eagerness to maintain purity in public life, petitioner says he filed the complaint, suspecting that the first respondent - daughter of the second respondent - secured admission to a Medical College without the minimum marks required, by forging a marklist. Offences under Secs.465, 466, 478, 471 and 472 read with Sec.109, I.P.C. were alleged. First respondent passed her Pre-Degree Examination in the year 1977 with Reg. No. 84524. According to petitioner, she secured below 50 per cent in Science subjects, 50 per cent being the minimum marks for seeking admission to Medical Colleges. Respondents are alleged to have altered the marks in the certificate, thus dishonestly and fraudulently making a document and using it as genuine. Complaint is unique by absence of averments of facts. It is not stated how, or when or in what manner, this was done. Paragraph V of the complaint only states that the offence committed by the accused would be proved, if the consolidated marklist for 1977, individual marksheet of the first accused, mark book for each subject, the tabulation register for 1977 and the answer papers of the first respondent were examined. Petitioner entertained a suspicion and no more. He wanted the Court to make an investigation. 3. A complaint should contain allegations, and if the Magistrate is satisfied on an examination of the complaint and the witness present or on inquiry that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may issue process underSec.204, Cr.P.C. If after considering the statement and the result of enquiry or investigation under Sec.202, Cr.P.C. Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground, he shall dismiss the complaint. Dismissal or issue of process must be on the satisfaction of the Magistrate. Process cannot be issued merely on the basis of a suspicion entertained by the complainant. 4. Magistrate below examined C.Ws.l to 4 (the complainant and three Controllers of examination of the University) and considered Exts. C2 to C8. Dismissal or issue of process must be on the satisfaction of the Magistrate. Process cannot be issued merely on the basis of a suspicion entertained by the complainant. 4. Magistrate below examined C.Ws.l to 4 (the complainant and three Controllers of examination of the University) and considered Exts. C2 to C8. Upon such consideration, the Magistrate did not find sufficient ground to proceed, and dismissed the complaint under Sec.203, Cr.P.C. It was noticed that the complainant had not seen the mark book, consolidated marklist, or the original marklist issued to the first respondent or the tabulation register. The Magistrate also noticed that complainant had no knowledge of the tampering alleged, and had only “hearsay knowledge”. It was further noticed that according to Ext. C6 marklist the first respondent had secured more than 50 per cent marks. 5. Two contentions raised are that the Magistrate should have caused production of various registers of the University, examined and come to a conclusion, and that one Mr. Jolly, Dy. S.P. whose evidence was dispensed with should have been examined. 6. Court enquiring into a complaint, is not required to assume the role of an investigating agency to collect evidence. Inquiry is contemplated by provisions of the Code and the Court may also direct an investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code. But, that does not put the Court in the position of an investigating agency to collect evidence for a complainant who comes before it without positive allegation or material, but with only hearsay information. If the Court were to lend itself to such exercises results would be very unwhole some and the Court would atonce be the prosecutor and judge. Any person without any apparent justification will be in a position to harass any one whom he chooses. Prosecution is entrusted to an independent agency, so that possible harassment or persecution is avoided. If the investigating agency does not act, remedy is available to an aggrieved person by way of filing private complaint. But by filing a private complaint on hearsay information, the complainant cannot arrogate to himself the role of the State. A prosecuting machinery to ensure fair investigation by an independent state agency, with necessary checks and balances, including judicial overseeing is evolved. If an interested person is conceded such powers the process can turn inquisitorial or worse. But by filing a private complaint on hearsay information, the complainant cannot arrogate to himself the role of the State. A prosecuting machinery to ensure fair investigation by an independent state agency, with necessary checks and balances, including judicial overseeing is evolved. If an interested person is conceded such powers the process can turn inquisitorial or worse. I am not unaware that any aggrieved person can set the criminal law into motion except where there is a statutory bail. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1984)2 S.C.C. 500 : (1984) S.C.C. (Crl.) 277: A.I.R 1984 S.C. 718. But that does not confer a right or recognition to be an investigator or a prosecutor. The prosecuting agency is far more, in quality and content than a complainant. This concept has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram and others v. State of Bihar Thakur Ram and others v. State of Bihar (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 589: (1966)2 S.C.J. 438: A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 911: “the criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book”. I am not inclined to accept the submission that the Magistrate should have aided the complainant in a fullfledged investigation like the one that procedes a police charge, to collect evidence and ascertain whether an offence is committed and if so proceed further as a Court. Petitioner has no tangible basis whatsoever, complainant never approached an investigating agency. It is seen that there was a special unit for investigating into mark-list cases and that had charge sheeted several cases. 7. The next contention is that Mr. Jolly should have been examined because he had some information which was useful to the petitioner. The Magistrate dispensed with the examination of the said Jolly on the ground that it was unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The next contention is that Mr. Jolly should have been examined because he had some information which was useful to the petitioner. The Magistrate dispensed with the examination of the said Jolly on the ground that it was unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is to be noticed that no crime had been registered or no enquiry had been made by Mr. Jolly or anyone else. I am told that the said officer was placed under suspension at the material time and naturally he could not have any access to any record. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to think ‘that the omission to examine Mr. Jolly caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Counsel for respondent referred to the deposition of Mr. Jolly in another case to the effect that he had no idea about any investigation being made against the respondents. I do not propose to rely on the evidence in another case. 8. Petitioner further submits that this Court should either direct an investigation into the matter or remit the matter back to the Magistrate. The scope of interference in revision against an order dismissing a complaint under Sec. 203 of the Code has to be appreciated. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Nagawwa v. Veeranna (1976)MLJ. (Crl.)593: (1976)2 S.C.J. 458:A.I.R 1976 S.C. 1947 the Supreme Court indicated the position. The Court said: “The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this 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”. Judged in the light of these principles, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Magistrate. He examined the petitioner and also C.Ws. 1 to 3. He perused Exts. C2 to C8 including the marklists and rightly dismissed the complaint. 9. Considerations of policy do not permit a Court to be made into an investigating agency simplicitor causing investigation into allegations not supported by factual basis. According to the evidence of C.W.1, answer papers are not preserved beyond six months. 1 to 3. He perused Exts. C2 to C8 including the marklists and rightly dismissed the complaint. 9. Considerations of policy do not permit a Court to be made into an investigating agency simplicitor causing investigation into allegations not supported by factual basis. According to the evidence of C.W.1, answer papers are not preserved beyond six months. Passage of time is an important factor in the criminal justicing system and no grounds are made out to reopen matters of another decade. Even when the petitioner moved this Court in 1983 he did not make a prayer to keep the documents on which he now seeks to rely, in safe custody. For these reasons, the revision petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.