JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The order passed by the learned Subdivisional judicial Magistrate, Padampur (S..D. J. M.) on 31-5-1986 in I. C. C. Case No. 27 of 1985 dismissing the complaint u/s 203, Criminal Procedure Code is assailed in this revision petition filed by the complainant. 2. The petitioner filed the complaint alleging inter alia, that on 16-11-1985 at about 12 noon when he along with Bharat Chandra Sahu and Basudev Meher was going on the road near Panda Hotel at Padampur, Shri P. C. Mallik an Asst. Sub-inspector of Police came there and took the complainant and his companions to Padampur Police Station. They were made to wait there. After sometime the accused-opposite party came there and rebuked the complaint and his companion in unparliamentary words and demanded Rs. 3000/- threatening to confine them in the police lock-up unless the said amount was paid to him. As the complainant and his companions protested, the opposite party extorted Rs. 360/- from possession of the complainant and Rs. 155/-from Basudev Meher and demanded the balance amount. The complainant and others were wrong- fully confined in the police lock-up and allowed to leave only after giving their signature on blank sheets of paper under threat of confinement by the opposite party and out of fear for the consequences. On these allegations the petitioner allged that the opposite party had committed the offence of extortion punishable u/s 384, Indian Penal Code (IPC). He had complained before the Sub-divisional Police Officer, when he came to the police station but nothing tangible came of it except a promise by the officer to took into the matter. On 10-2-1986 the complainant's statement u/s 200, Cr. P. C. was recorded. The learned S. D. J. M. postponed issue of process against the accused and he!d an enquiry u/s 202 Cr. P. C. In the said enquiry the petitioner examined two witnesses, Gujaram Biswai and Bharat Sahu, who narrated the incident witnessed by them. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses dismissed that complaint stating the reason "statement of the witnesses as well as the initial statement of the complainant are nothing but stock-pile of material discrepancies". The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses dismissed that complaint stating the reason "statement of the witnesses as well as the initial statement of the complainant are nothing but stock-pile of material discrepancies". The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. Shri J. N. Mishra appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order under challenge is vitiated on account of erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate, inasmuch as, he considered the materials on record to ascertain if the individual witnesses examined in support of the complainant's case are to be believed and if the case against the accused can be said to have been established. Shri Mishra has placed before me the statements of the two witnesses named above. 4. On reading the provisions of Sections 202 and 203, Cr. P. C, it is clear that a Magistrate must first examine on oath the complainant and his witnesses present, if any, and then he shall dismiss the complaint__(1) if he finds that no offence has been committed, or (2) if he distrusts the statement of the complainant and his witnesses examined; and (3) he shall also dismiss if on a consideration of the result of inquiry or investigation, if any, u/s 202, he thinks that there is no ground for proceeding. A complaint may also be dismissed if bare perusal of it or the evidence show that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence that it would be waste of time to proceed further. 5. In the case of D.N. Bhattacharjee and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Another the Apex Court considering the scope and purpose of the power to dismiss a complaint observed : An order of dismissal of a complaint u/s 203 has to be made on judicially sound grounds. It can only be made where the reasons given disclose that the proceedings cannot terminate successfully in a conviction, it is true that the Magistrate is not debarred at this stags, from going into the merits of the evidence produced by the complainant. But, the object of such consideration of the merits of the case, at this stage, could only be to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further or not. But, the object of such consideration of the merits of the case, at this stage, could only be to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further or not. The mere existence of some grounds which would be material in deciding whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted does not generally indicate that the case must necessarily fail. On the other hand, such grounds may indicate the need for proceeding further in order to discover the truth after a full and proper investigation. If, however, a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it show essential ingredients of the of fences alleged are absent or that the dispute is only of a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that It would be a waste of time to proceed further the complaint could be properly dismissed u/s 203, What the Magistrate has to determine at the stage of issue of process is not the correctness or the probability or improbability of individual items of evidence on disputable grounds, but the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case on the assumption that what is stated can be true unless the prosecution allegations are so fantastic that they cannot reasonably be held to be true. (quoted from the placitum) In another case reported at page 2639 of the same volume (Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and others), the Court interpreting the words ''No sufficient ground for proceeding" observed : "The words 'sufficient ground' used in Sections 203 and 209 mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused, by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and do not mean sufficient grounds for the purpose of conviction. The test is whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction, and where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at that appropriate stage and issue of a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case. In a revision against such a refusal, the High Court also has to apply the same test. (quoted from the placitum) 6. Tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is clear that the impugned order dismissing the complaint is unsupportable. As noted earlier the sole reason stated in the order was that, there were certain discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses regarding snatching of Rs. 155/- from one of the companions of the complainant and whether the complainant and his companions put their signatures on a single blank paper, or several such papers. There Is however, no discrepancy noted by the learned Magistrate regarding the allegations made by the complainant that he and his companions were taken to the police station, wrongfully confined there, a sum of Rs. 3000/- was demanded from them to secure their liberty and under threat of continued confinement the complainant was forced to part with Rs. 30/- and was made to sign on a piece of blank paper. The learned Magistrate has not recorded any finding that on the materials on record no criminal offence is committed by the accused or that the story set out in the complaint is so improbable or fantastic that it can never be true or that the dispute of a civil nature. Merely noting a few discrepancies in the evidence of some of the witnesses was not sufficient to discard their evidence altogether, even at the trial of the case. At the stage of issue of process, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, the Magistrate is only to ascertain if there is prima facie case which requires further probe in order to discover the truth after full and proper investigation. The impugned order therefore falls short of the requirements for dismissal of the complaint and it cannot be sustained. Further, the allegations in the present case are serious, particularly so because they are made against a police officer and the incident is alleged to have taken place inside the police station. The impugned order therefore falls short of the requirements for dismissal of the complaint and it cannot be sustained. Further, the allegations in the present case are serious, particularly so because they are made against a police officer and the incident is alleged to have taken place inside the police station. The learned" Magistrate, in my view, should have paid better attention to the case and should have scrutinised the materials property and if he felt necessary, held further enquiry in the matter. 7. The revision petition is therefore allowed, the impugned order dismissing the complaint is set aside, the case is remitted to the learned S. D.J.M., Padampur who will consider the question of issue of process afresh keeping in view the discussions in the judgment and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It will be open to the learned Magjstrate to hold further enquiry if be considers it necessary. Final Result : Allowed