Judgment : The present revision is by the complainant, who presented a complaint before the Court of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Thenkasi, against the respondents herein, for offences under Secs.147, 447 and 506(1) read with 109 and 355, I.P.C., on various allegations. The learned Magistrate took the sworn statement of the petitioner and forwarded the complaint under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report Enquiry report was submitted by the police and after perusing the complaint, enquiry report and the sworn statement, the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate under Sec.203, Cr.P.C. dismissing the complaint. The aggrieved complainant has preferred this revision. 2. Thiru S.Gomathinayagam, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner would urge that at this stage, under Sec.203, Cr.P.C., the Court has merely to find out whether there is material enough to proceed further and cause notice to be issued to the accused and for this purpose the averments in the complaint and the report of the enquiry officer, if any, and the sworn statement recorded have to be accepted at their face value to determine whether any offence is made out and it is not for the Court to assess the relative merit of the allegations made, discuss the probabilities and give factual findings to dismiss the complaint under Sec.203, Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offences mentioned therein and the sworn statement recorded from the petitioner also showed that the respondents had committed the offences and these averments taken along with the enquiry report were sufficient materials for issuing process to the accused under Sec.204, Cr.P.C. and dismissal of the complaint under Sec.203, Cr.P.C. was against law. In addition to the above contentions, on the merits of the case, relying upon the decision in 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 25 learned counsel for the petitioner would state that this being a revision against an order passed in a pre-process stage, the respondents ought not to be heard since at this stage, the matter is only between the complainant and the Court. 3. 3. Per contra, Thiru N.Paul Vasanthakumar, learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously contended that the order of the learned Magistrate is in fact a speaking order, since he has mentioned therein the relevant materials that he had perused and also the reasons for passing order and the report of the enquiry officer which also gives sufficient reasons for the impugned order should be construed as part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, and that, therefore, there was no merit in this revision. Learned counsel also pointed out the infirmities in the version of the petitioners as detailed in the enquiry report. According to the learned counsel, there was substantial compliance with Sec.203, Cr.P.C., which merely requires a brief recording of the reasons for dismissing the complaint and in the instant case, learned Magistrate had briefly recorded the reasons in his order and no interference with the order by this Court in the provisional powers was called for. 4. No doubt the initial objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. On the complaint, police report had been called for and the sworn statement of the petitioner had been recorded and under Sec.203, Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate had found that this was not a case that required issue of process to the accused and had passed the impugned order. The respondent-accused had not come into the picture and they have, therefore, no right to be heard as held in this court in Somu alias Somasundaram and 3 others v. State and another, 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 25, that the accused in these proceedings even if he so desires could only be a passive spectator and not an active participant. However, the petitioner himself had chosen to implead the respondents and had spared no gains to see that notice had been served on the whole lot of them. Hence, a learned counsel having received instructions and making representations in the matter, need not be silenced on this technical ground, particularly when I am ultimately allowing this revision. 5. It is settled law that at the stage of Sec.203, Cr.P.C., the Court is required merely to find out whether there is any material to issue process to the accused and whether the averments made, constitute any offence calling for taking the case on file. 5. It is settled law that at the stage of Sec.203, Cr.P.C., the Court is required merely to find out whether there is any material to issue process to the accused and whether the averments made, constitute any offence calling for taking the case on file. At this stage, the Court is not required to assess the evidence to consider the probabilities or improbabilities of the versions of the complainant or evaluate the sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses, or consider any delay in laying the complaint or motive for false implication. These are all matters, which would be relevant after the accused has entered appearance and when the trial begins. Taking the averments at their face value, the court without adding or subtracting, will have to find out whether the ingredients of any offence are made out and if so, the court has to take the case on file for all those offences and issue process to such of those accused against whom such averments have been made. The decision of the Supreme Court in Thula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh, 1978 L.W. (Crl.) 80 (S.N.) (S.C.), is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents to place before the Court the guidelines which the Supreme Court has laid down, while acting under Sec.203, Cr.P.C. The relevant passage occurred in paragraph 14 of the judgment. 6. In the instant case, the complaint contains clear averments against all the respondents for various offences. It is alleged that on 26.5.1985 at 5 P.M., the second respondent assaulted the petitioner on the head and caused a bleeding injury and the 7th respondent assaulted him on the shoulder and caused an injury, while the 4th respondent fisted him on his left side chest and caused a contusion. It is also stated that when the father of the petitioner intervened, respondents 3 and 5 caught hold of him, while respondents 6, 8 and 9 plotted mud on him and caused contusions, while the 4th respondent assaulted the petitioner with a stick near the left ear. It is also stated that the respondents 8 and 9 beat the petitioner with broom and that the injured were taken to the hospital, where for the head injuries, the doctor applied sutures. These averments have been repeated in the sworn statement given by the petitioner. 7. It is also stated that the respondents 8 and 9 beat the petitioner with broom and that the injured were taken to the hospital, where for the head injuries, the doctor applied sutures. These averments have been repeated in the sworn statement given by the petitioner. 7. Besides these materials, the report of the local head constable on the complaint forwarded to him under Sec.156(3), Cr.P.C. inter alia states that at 4.30 P.M., there had been an incident, in which the present respondents were injured on an attack made by the father of the petitioner in connection with which a case in Crime No.132 of 1985 for offences under Secs.323 and 324, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner, his father and some others belonging to his group. The report also says that at 5 P.M. when the respondents 1 and 7 were standing in the scene, the petitioner went there and on seeing him, the respondents 1 and 7 became enraged and assaulted the petitioner on his head and left shoulder and that the petitioner at 5.15 P.M. came to the police station and gave a statement on which the petitioner was sent to the Government Hospital, where the medical officer treated him and certified that the injury was simple and as such the offence made out against the respondents 1 and 2 was only under Sec.323 I.P.C., which is non-cognizable and that, therefore, he had applied to the court for permission to investigate into the case. No doubt the report concludes by discussing the relevant merits of the two versions and stating that the versions put forward by the present petitioner is false and is a counter blast to Crime No.132/85 registered against them. The learned Magistrate had this enquiry report also before him. 8. In the order under challenge, the learned Magistrate had listed out the documents he had perused and has concluded by an observation that an analysis of the documents would show that there are no sufficient reasons for taking the petitioner’s complaint on file. There is no discussion about the materials placed before him in the complaint, sworn statement and the enquiry report. Merely because the list of documents that he had perused are mentioned in the order, the orders does not become a speaking order. There is no discussion about the materials placed before him in the complaint, sworn statement and the enquiry report. Merely because the list of documents that he had perused are mentioned in the order, the orders does not become a speaking order. To be a speaking order, reasons have to be given as to why the averments made by the complainant both in his complaint and in his sworn statement would not be sufficient to issue process under Sec.204, Cr.P.C. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Magistrate to consider the materials afresh and pass suitable orders in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by his Court in this order. The revision is allowed.