Judgment :- 1. The accusedin C.C.No.38 of 1989 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, South Arcot District, has filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid C.C.No.38 of 1989 and quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The petitioners father contested the election for Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly held on 21.1.1989 for Kurinjipadi Assembly Constituency as Congress (I) party candidate and lost the election. The accused is Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyveli. On 23.1.1989 the accused was camping at Vadalur Police Station. On that day, at about 8.00 P.M. the complainant was taken in a van by police personnel to Vadalur Police Station stating that the accused had called him to come over there. At Vadalur Police Station, the accused abused the complainant and pushed him inside the station lock up cell and closed the door from outside. When the complainant, a practising lawyer, asked the accused as to why he was kept inside the lock out, the accused abused him further and went to his seat without giving any explanation. The complainant asked the accused to provide drinking water. The accused shouted saying that he can drink his urine. He kept him in unlawful confinement, throughout that night. He did not allow Ganesan who wanted to give some food to the complainant. The complainants father sent messages on 24.1.1989 to Governor of Tamil Nadu and other higher officials. On 24.1.1989 at about 10.30 P.M. on the undertaking given by Jayaraman that he will produce him before the accused whenever directed, the accused released him, after wrongfully confining him for about 26 hours. Hence the complaint for offences under Sec.220, 342 and 357, I.P.C. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to have returned the complaint on the ground that necessary sanction for prosecution was not obtained by the complainant. On that, the respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.3894 of 1989 in this Court My learned brother Justice T.SArunachalam, by order dated 29.3.1989 had held that return of the complaint by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore at this stage apjnears to be not in consonance with law. The learned Judge has directed the trial Magistrate to receive the complaint and dispose it of in accordance with law. The learned Judge has directed the trial Magistrate to receive the complaint and dispose it of in accordance with law. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had recorded the sworn statement of the complaint on 10.4.1989 and after perusing the same and the complaint had taken it on file under Sec.220, 342 and 357, I.P.C. against accused and ordered issue of summons to the accused. He had not entered appearance before the learned trial Magistrate. At that stage, the accused in the court below has come forward with this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 1989. 4. Mr.P.M.Sundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the trial Magistrate should be directed to hold an enquiry under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. and then alone the learned Magistrate should have proceeded with the trial of the case for offences for which there is prima facie evidence in the enquiry to be held under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. Per contra, Mr.R. Balasubramaniam, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that in Crl.M.P.No.3894 of 1989 in which the petitioner herein and the first respondent were parties, this Court has directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore to receive the complaint and dispose it of in accordance with lawand in pursuance of this direction issued by the court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had received the complaint and had recorded the sworn statement and had perused it and as well as the complaint and taken it on file under Sec.202, 342 and 357, I.P.C. and had ordered issue of summons to the accused and at this stage the process cannot be reversed and the learned Magistrate cannot be directed to conduct an enquiry under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. 5. To have a better appreciation of the rival contentions, the first part of Sec.202, Crl.P.C. needs extraction which reads as follows: “202. Postponement of issue of process: (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Sec.192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings.” [Emphasis supplied] The learned Magistrate had not thought it fit to postpone issue of process against the accused, in view of the materials available in the complaint as well as in the sworn statement given by the complainant and taken the case on file as aforesaid and had directed issue of summons to the accused and summons had been issued to the accused. While so, the stage of an enquiry under Sec.201 had already passed. While so, there is not acceptable ground to put the clock back and erase the judicial discretion exercised by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in taking the case on file after perusal of the complaint and the sworn statement and issue of summons to the accused. In the sworn statement which I find in the original record, the complainant had substantiated what all he had stated in the complaint. 6. Mr.P.M.Sundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon the ruling reported in Mani v. Salem 1989 L.W. (Crl.) 187 in that case, the complaint was apprehended by the accused who are Customs Officers. To quash the proceedings, the accused in that case had filed petition in the High Court. Their contention was that in order to forestall the subsequent detention or prosecution of the respondent for his offence, he has filed this complaint against the concerned Customs Officers, seven in number. Justice David Annoussamy has observed that in a case of such nature, after receiving the complaint and taking the sworn statement, the Magistrate should have also either postponed the issue of the process under Sec.202 of the Crl.P.C. and should make sufficient enquiry or at least examined upon oath the witnesses listed in the complaint. Issuing the process without satisfying himself that there was sufficient ground, upon the sole statement of the complainant is certainly an act which is not in accordance with the established procedure. Holding so, issue of process was quashed. The facts of this case are different from the facts of that case. Hence this ruling will not apply to this case. In that case, issue of process without satisfying himself that there was sufficient ground was held to be not in accordance with the established procedure. It is not like that in the case before me. The facts of this case are different from the facts of that case. Hence this ruling will not apply to this case. In that case, issue of process without satisfying himself that there was sufficient ground was held to be not in accordance with the established procedure. It is not like that in the case before me. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ruling reported in K. Kaninakaran, Chief Minister, Trivandnim v. T. A. Rajendran, Chief Minister, [1985] 2 Crimes 279In it, at para 32, the Kerala High Court has held as follows: “It is by now well established that the object of an enquiry under Sec.202 of the Crl.P.C. is to ensure that no person shall be compelled to answer a criminal charge unless the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for issuing a process against the said accused person.” He further relied upon the ruling reported in N.C. Misra v. Dijabar Swain [1984] 3 Crimes 667In para 6, Justice P.C. Misra has observed as follows: “Sec.202 of the Crl.P.C. provides that any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer, or by such other agency as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.” So it is only in a case where the Magistrate thinks fit, he shall postpone issue of process against the accused and hold an enquiry under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. It is not as if invariably in each and every case mechanically an enquiry under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. should be held. Such an interpretation is not warranted by the very language of Sec.202, CY1.P.C In appropriate cases, where the Magistrate thinks fit, such an enquiry shoulate is absolutely satisfied from the allegations made in the complaint and from the evidence furnished in the sworn statement that there are materials to proceed against the accused for certain offences, the Magistrate is certainly within his limits to take the complaint on file for those offences and issue summons to the accused. In the instant case, I do not find any went of ingredients for offences alleged against the accused either in the complaint or in the sworn statement given by the complainant. Hence this is not a case where proceedings of the Magistrate issuing summons to the accused is to be quashed. There are cases where such a remedy should be given but this case does not fall within that category. 7. In view of the above, the petition which has got no merits shall stand dismissed.