JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This Criminal Misc. Case is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, refusing to interfere with an order of dismissal of a complaint petition u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur. 2. A few facts may be stated. The Petitioner filed a complaint petition against the opposite parties alleging that in the night of 11-3-1988 they formed an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons attacked his house, abused him in filthy language, broke open the door,peIted stones and assaulted him, as a result of which, he was injured. He was examined on 12-4-1988 and the learned Magistrate passed the following order: ...Cog. of offences u/s 336/323/427/341/34, I.P.C. is taken against the accused persons. Call on 22-4-1988 for enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure when complainant is directed to produce his witnesses, any Pursuant to the order, the complainant produced three witnesses in support of his case. On consideration of the facts stated in the complaint petition, initial statement of the Petitioner, and the statements of the witnesses, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case for issuance of process against the opposite parties had not been established, and so he dismissed the complaint petition. The Petitioner carried a revision to the Court of Session, but without success. 3. Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the pe6tioner, urged that by order dated 12-4-1988 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences'a$ainst the opposite parties under Sections 323, 336, 341 and 427 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and so his direction for holding an enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and the eventual order of dismissal of the complaint petition are not in accordance with law. The contention has force. 4. It is elementary that if it is not possible for the Magistrate to take cognizance of offences on the existing material, he can direct an enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure. If the materials existing are sufficient, there is no impediment for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences and issue process against the accused without holding any such enquiry. In this case, the learned Magistrate put the cart before the horse. First he took cognizance of the offences against the opposite parties and then directed an enquiry u/s 202. If the materials existing are sufficient, there is no impediment for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences and issue process against the accused without holding any such enquiry. In this case, the learned Magistrate put the cart before the horse. First he took cognizance of the offences against the opposite parties and then directed an enquiry u/s 202. Such a procedure is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure. If he had any doubt on 12.4.1988 about existence of a prima facie case, he ought not to have taken cognizance of the offences and at that stage it was within his jurisdiction to direct an enquiry u/s 202. Taking Cognizance of the offences and directing an enquiry simultaneously are, to say the least, irregular and illegal. Unfortunately the learned Sessions Judge did not correct the mistake in the criminal revision presented before him. If the impugned orders are allowed to stand, there shall be miscarriage of justice. 5. For the reasonss stated above, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the impugned orders of the learned Courts below are set aside. The criminal case shall now proceed according to law if cognizance of the offences has duly been taken by the learned Magistrate. He should proceed further in the case in accordance with law. The lower Court records be sent back forthwith. Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. Final Result : Allowed