ORDER B.M. Lal, J. -- 1. Non-applicant No. 1 Dwarkaprasad Modi filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking cognizance against the applicant Dr. Kanhaiyalal Modi for offences punishable under section 323 and 506 read with section 109 IPC. 2. After recording the evidence of the non-applicants, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni sent for the report of the concerned police station house, Seoni. The Station House Officer, Seoni, after making necessary inquiry reported that no case is made out against the applicant and therefore, cognizance for the offences alleged are not necessary. However, the Magistrate further recorded the statement of the complainant's witness and issued process against the applicant as contemplated under section 204 of the Code, against which this revision has been filed. 3. Shri S.C. Datt, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that under section 202 of the Code three modes have been prescribed for investigation before issuance of process against an accused, viz., (i) he himself may inquire into the case; (ii) direct an investigation to be made by a police officer; and (iii) by such other person as he thinks fit. On the basis of this, the learned counsel contended that the Court having adopted one of the mode, i.e. referring the matter to the Station House Officer for inquiry and report and having received a report from the Station House Officer that no case is made out against the applicant, the learned Magistrate is precluded from examining the complainants witnesses subsequently and issuing process against the applicant under section 204 of the Code. In support of his contention, the learned counsel Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court report in Sankar Chandra Ghosh v. Roopraj S. Bhansally 1981 CrLJ 1002 , wherein it has been laid down that – "Where the Magistrate after receipt of the report of the police officer under section 202 allowed the prayer of the complaint for judicial enquiry and fixed the date for further evidence the order of further enquiry, i.e. second enquiry would be incompetent". 4. Sri Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the non-applicants, invited attention to the provisions of sub-sections (2) of section 202 of the Code. This provision envisages that in an enquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath. 5. 4. Sri Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the non-applicants, invited attention to the provisions of sub-sections (2) of section 202 of the Code. This provision envisages that in an enquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath. 5. The import of sub-section (2) of section 202 of the Code, in the opinion of this Court, is that the provisions of sub-section (2) prescribing three modes are directory and it depends upon the discretion of the Magistrate to choose one of the three modes. It is not that once the concerned police station house officer submitted the enquiry report that is final and binding on the Magistrate. The Magistrate, despite the report received from the police, if he thinks fit, under the facts and circumstances of the case, still may proceed with the case in view of sub-section (2) or section 202 for making further enquiry. 6. Shri S.C. Datt also relied on the decisions reported in A.J. Joshwa v. State 1965(II) CrLJ 824, Nagawa v. Veeranna Shivlingappa Koryalagi 1975 CrLJ 1367 , Ali Bohari v. Hussainali Bohari AIR 1937 Nag. 389, Radha Kishan Rao v. S.K. Mishra AI 1949 Pat. 36 and Aslam Hasmi v. State of M.P. & another M.Cr.C.No. 2543/89, and filed a list of cases, which may be taken on record. 7. On the other hand, Shri Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the non-applicants, cited two decisions or the Apex Court, viz., Tularam v. Kishore Singh AIR 1977 SC 2401 and T.J. Stephen v. Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. 1988 Supp. SCC 458, and contended that considering the provisions or section 202 or the Code, it has been ruled that despite the report of the Investigating officer, the Magistrate still considering the facts and circumstances or the case, can record the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and may issue process against the accused persons. 8. He further submitted that the records of investigation are not evidence in such cases launched under section 200 of the Code. 9. This being so, in the opinion of this Court, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the applicant Shri S.C. Datt, stand no longer good law in view or the decisions in Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh and T.J. Stephen v. Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. (supra). 10. 9. This being so, in the opinion of this Court, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the applicant Shri S.C. Datt, stand no longer good law in view or the decisions in Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh and T.J. Stephen v. Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. (supra). 10. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering issuance or process under section 204 of the Code cannot be said to he suffering from any legal infirmity calling interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 11. Shri S.C. Datt further tried to assail the order impugned on merits and submitted that the complaint as made and filed and the evidence led in support thereof do not prima facie make out any ease against the applicant and therefore the learned Magistrate has committed an error of law in issuing process. Suffice to say that issuance of process is based on appreciation of evidence and therefore at this stage no interference is called for. Only in exceptional cases where the order is patently illegal and where the order of the Magistrate is not supported by material on record, then in that circumstance alone the order of the Magistrate could he set aside. Such is not the position here and therefore the submission of Shri Datt has no force and is rejected. 12. Thus, this revision fails and is dismissed.