JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - Complainant is the petitioner and in this petition assails the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint u/s 203.of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a pump set from the Agro Industries Corporation through the Andhra Bank and was giving the said pump set on hire to outsiders. Accused No. 1 took that pump set for one month on hire with the rental fixed at Rs. I00/- per day. He paid Rs. 400/- towards advance and after the period for hire expired when the complainant demanded the pump set and the balance dues, the accused did not return the same. To a complainant's registered notice, the accused replied that he had never taken the pump on hire from the complainant. On the other hand, it was stated that the complainant had sold the same to accused No. 2. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint case. Admittedly, the complainant had not taken anything in writing from accused No. 1 while giving the pump set to him on hire as he was a relation of the complainant. 3 On taking the initial statement of the complainant, the Magistrate thought it fit to hold an enquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that enquiry the complainant examined 2 witnesses. The Magistrate on consideration of the statement of the complainant and the evidence of the witnesses in the enquiry u/s 202 being of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding dismissed the same by the impugned order and hence the complainant has approached this Court 4. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the complainant petitioner contends that the Magistrate at this stage has merely to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary enquiry u/s 202, a prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused exists or nor. The Magistrate is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously. By the. impugned order the Magistrate having done so had exceeded his jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. The Magistrate is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously. By the. impugned order the Magistrate having done so had exceeded his jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. A bare perusal of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly demonstrates that the Magistrate his to find out whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, against the accused or not and he is to form his opinion on examining the statement of the complainant as well as the statements of the witnesses taken in course of enquiry u/s 202. No doubt, the Magistrate at that stage is not supposed to have a detailed scrutiny and assessment of the evidence, but at the same time it cannot be said that the Magistrate must mechanically apply his mind and take cognisance To take cognisance is a judicial act of the Magistrate after application of mind to the materials on record and the order passed by the Magistrate thereon is a judicial order. The Magistrate has to be satisfied before ordering dismissal of a complaint in exercise of his power u/s 203 that "no sufficient ground for proceeding" exists. The question whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not must be based upon the materials referred to in the section, namely the statement on oath of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of any investigation or enquiry u/s 202. In forming his opinion as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists or not, the Magistrate has to do a little bit of sifting. In other words, the standard of. test and judgment which is to be finally app- lied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not to be applied, but the standard of a test of a prima facie case has to be applied. The Supreme Court while considering the question as to the legal position when a prosecution at the initial stage is sought to be quashed as laid down in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, that the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, that the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. But at the same time it is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue and this is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances, of an ultimate conviction are bleak, and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. The aforesaid tests laid down for a Court to be applied when cognisance is sought to be quashed at a preliminary stage should also apply to a case where the Magistrate dismisses a complaint u/s 203. In the impugned order the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the statement of PW 2 is doubtful as the complainant himself did not whisper a single word as to if he had gone to the house of the accused for enquiry about the pump set in question. The Magistrate further doubted the complainant's statement to the effect that he had lodged a written report in the police station as no such report was found in the police station, as reported by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. On examining the materials on record, the Magistrate further held : "........I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to make out anything to attract the provisions of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code........." So far as Section 420, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, the Magistrate held that a mere breach of contract could not give rise to a criminal prosecution and on the evidence on record, there was nothing to establish that the accused committed an offence u/s 420, Indian Penal Code, On these findings the Magistrate ultimately concluded that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons. In the case of Kewal Krishan Vs. In the case of Kewal Krishan Vs. Suraj Bhan and Another their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Sections 203 and 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution have held where no right of appeal exists, Article 136 does not serve to create such a right and Supreme Court cannot be treated as a general Court of review for correcting each and every error of law or fact in criminal cases.' This extraordinary constitutional power reserved to the Supreme Court is meant to be invoked in exceptional cases where the error committed by the Courts below has occasioned grave and substantial miscarriage of justice. The aforesaid dictum should equally apply in the present case. For the sake of argument even if it is held that the Magistrate overstepped his discretion in meticulously appreciating the evidence, yet it would not be a case where there is inherent lack of jurisdiction, nor can it be said that by committing the error in exercise of jurisdiction, there has been any gross miscarriage of justice. Having examined the impugned order and the reasons for which the Magistrate has found that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, I am of the considered opinion that the Magistrate has not committed any error nor has there been any gross miscarriage of justice Which warrants interference of this Court. Accordingly this revision is dismissed, Final Result : Dismissed