Judgment Binodanand Singh, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 11-3-1987, passed by Shri R. Narain, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur, in C.R. No. 26/87, whereby the learned Magistrate refused to take any action against the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 on the complaint filed by the petitioner. 2. The relevant facts are that a petition of complaint was filed by the petitioner on 16-1-1987, arraying the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 as the accused persons, before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate Rosara at Samastipur for the offences under sections 302, 202 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the petition of complaint that opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi, wife of Kari Das, who was brother of the petitioner a lady of loose character and she never used to live in the village of the petitioner peacefully. Since last one and half years she was living at her fathers place and persons of her fathers place were not allowing her to be taken to the house of the petitioners brother, i.e. at her husbands place. Due to this the brother of the petitioner did not use to go to his Sasural, i.e., father-in-laws place. A few months back from the date of occurrence, the Sala (brother-in-law) of Kari Das had taken Rs. 6 000 from the brother of the petitioner for purchasing land and had agreed to refund the money soon. On 4-1-1987 opposite party No 1 Gulzar Das along with opposite party No. 2 Ram Charitra Yadav had come to the house of the petitioner. Opposite Party No. 1 Gulzar Das requested his brother, namely, Kari Das to accompany them to their village Sakara saying that he would return Rs. 6,000, which he had arranged for him and will also allow his sister to come to his (Kari Das) place. Kari Das brother of the petitioner, along with opposite party No. 1 Gulzar Das and opposite party No. 2 Ram Charitra Yadav went to village Sakara on 4-1-1987 at 1 p.m. saying that he would return by tomorrow evening When Kari Das, brother of the petitioner, did not return till the night of 6-1-1987, on 7-1-1987 the petitioner went to village Sakara to call his brother. There at Sakara, opposite party No. 1 Gulzar Das, opposite party No. 3 Ramdhani Yadav and opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi told the petitioner that his brother had returned to his own village on 6-1-1987 after taking the money. The petitioner grew suspicious and therefore he made enquiry from the villagers of village Sakara about his brother and there he came to know that his brother Kari Das had been murdered by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 on 6-1-1987 in the night. It was further disclosed to him that opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi had given birth to an illegitimate child for which there had been a quarrel between opposite party No 6 and the brother of the petitioner. Besides, Kari Das, the brother of the petitioner had also quarrel with other accused persons for money as well. The petitioner tried to search out his brother, but came to know that the dead body of the brother of the petitioner had been thrown in river Gandak In the early morning, one cot was found near Ramauladhala. Thereafter the petitioner went to Garhpura Police Station to lodge a case but the officer-in-charge of Garahpura Police Station refused to institute the case on his statement and directed the petitioner first to trace out the dead body then any case will be entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Bakhari and sent information to the Superintendent of Police and the Collector Begusarai, by telegram. On 8-1-1987, the petitioner went to the Superintendent of police along with one Sikandar Yadav with a written complaint who directed to meet the Dy. S.P. in this connection. While the petitioner and Sikandar Yadav were narrating about the incident to the Dy. S.P., Officer-in-charge of Garhpura Police Station reached there and took this petitioner as well as Sikandar Yadav on Jeep to Garhpura Police Station, where the petitioner wanted to lodge information regarding the murder of his brother. The officer-in-charge thereafter assaulted this petitioner and Sikandar Yadav and kept them in police lock up. 3. it has farther been alleged in the petition of complaint that opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi, being threatened and under promise in order to save the accused persons, instituted a false case. Sikandar Yadav was kept in police Hajat for two days and on 10-1-1987 Sikandar Yadav was taken to Begusarai on Jeep. 3. it has farther been alleged in the petition of complaint that opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi, being threatened and under promise in order to save the accused persons, instituted a false case. Sikandar Yadav was kept in police Hajat for two days and on 10-1-1987 Sikandar Yadav was taken to Begusarai on Jeep. The petitioner was also kept in Thana-hajat from 8-1-1987 to 12-1-1987 and there he was assaulted and threatened to depose in the aforesaid false and concocted case filed by opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi. On the same date, i.e., on 12-1 1987 at 8 a.m. in the morning, opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi and others were called at the police station and along with them the petitioner was also taken to Begusarai Court on a Jeep This petitioner along with opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi and others were produced in the court of Shri T.K. Sah, Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, for making statement but their statement could not be recorded for want of time. The petitioner was again taken back to Garhpura Police Station and kept him inside Hajat. In the next morning, i.e. , on 13-1-1987 left thumb impression of the petitioner was taken on two blank papers by the police and the petitioner was left off with a direction to come to Begusarai Court on 15-1-1987. On 14-1-1987 the court was closed. Therefore the complainant came to Samastipur on 15-1-1987. Since the train had reached late on that date and it took sometime in drafting and typing the complaint, the complaint was being filed on 16-1-1987. It has also been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner did not go to Hasanpur Police Station due to fear of Shree Pandit, the Officer-in-charge of Garhpura Police Station and hence the complaint was being filed in the Court. 4. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur after perusing the complaint sent the same to the Officer-in-charge of Hasanpur Police Station under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for instituting a case. 4. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur after perusing the complaint sent the same to the Officer-in-charge of Hasanpur Police Station under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for instituting a case. In this connection a report was submitted by the officer-in-charge of Hasanpur Police Station to the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur, stating that a case had already been instituted at Garhpura Police Station within the district of Begusarai as Garhpura Police Station Case No. 5/87 dated 8-1-1987 under Sec.364 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the alleged murder of Kari Das and the investigation was going on and, therefore, the officer-in-charge of Hasanpur Police Station returned the complaint along with his report. 5. Another petition was filed by the petitioner in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosra at Samastipur on 27-2-1987 praying therein to again direct the officer-in-charge of Hasanpur Police Station to institute a case on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid petition of the petitioner has been disposed of by the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, which has been challenged in this criminal revision application, is illegal since it is not in accordance with the procedure as laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection it has been, submitted that the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur had only three courses open to him, i.e., either to exercise his powers under Sec.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby dismiss the complaint of the petitioner to proceed with the case by issuing summons under Sec.204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate has returned the complaint of the petitioner directing him to file the protest petition before the competent court of Begusarai district which is not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The third course open to the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur was to return the complaint of the petitioner to him under Sec.201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that he was not competent to take cognizance of the case. The third course open to the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur was to return the complaint of the petitioner to him under Sec.201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that he was not competent to take cognizance of the case. According to the petitioners counsel the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate has adopted neither of the three courses as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure Submission of the petitioners counsel appears to be quite tenable. Neither the court below has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner nor he has proceeded under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by issuing summons nor he has returned the complaint to the petitioner for riling the same before a competent court. In view of these facts it is obvious that the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate has passed an order which is not provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. In these circumstances, this application is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the court concerned with a direction to pass necessary orders on the petition of complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. This order will not be prejudicial in any manner in exercising his own discretion of the Court in accordance with law, so far as the disposal of the complaint petition is concerned.