B. N. KRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, the accused in cc no. 817 of 1988 on the file of the jmfc, ii court, bijapur, has sought for quashing All the proceedings. That proceeding was initiated before the learned magistrate by the first respondent herein by filing a complaint under section 200, cr. P. c. alleging that accused-petitioner herein has committed an offence under section 500, ipc. The complaint was filed on 26-8-1986 and the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 3-9-1988 and sworn statement of one more witness was examined on 15-10-1988. On 26-10-1988 the learned magistrate passed an order directing issue of process. ( 2 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner canvassed twogrounds to quash the proceedings. It was firstly urged by him that there is nothing in the proceedings of the learned magistrate to show that she had taken cognizance of the offence before she proceeded to examine p. ws. 1 and 2. Secondly, it was urged that the records indicate that the examination of p. ws. 1 and 2 was done by the complainant's advocate, Sri bannur and on both these grounds, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and the magistrate should be directed to redo the proceedings in accordance with law. ( 3 ) THE magistrate receiving a private complaint may proceedto refer it under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or he may refer to police under section 202, cr. P. c. or he may proceed to take cognizance of the offence and proceed to record the sworn statement of the witnesses present if any. If the learned magistrate has not adopted those two earlier courses and has proceeded to examine the witnesses, in my considered view, it impliedly means that he has taken cognizance and only thereafter he has proceeded to examine the witnesses. This view is supported by the decision of this court in abdul khadar mohammad gous attigeri v State of karnataka. Therefore there is no substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 (a ). So far as the second contention is concerned, no doubt section 200 enjoins the magistrate to examine the witnesses present, if any. The sworn statement has infact been recorded to the dictation of the learned magistrate. Therefore there is no substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 (a ). So far as the second contention is concerned, no doubt section 200 enjoins the magistrate to examine the witnesses present, if any. The sworn statement has infact been recorded to the dictation of the learned magistrate. But the complaint on behalf of the petitioner is that the sworn statement indicates that the examination-in-chief of these two witnesses was done by Sri bannur, advocate. Even assuming for a moment that the learned advocate for the complainant assisted the court in the process of examination of the complainant and his witnesses on oath and that it is an irregularity, it appears that it is not such an irregularity as to vitiate the entire proceedings. It is not one of the irregularities mentioned in section 461, cr. P. c. it has not been demonstrated that this procedure adopted has resulted in any prejudice to the accused. It may be noticed that the accused has appeared before the court and at the time when the case had been posted for recording evidence, the accused has come forward with this petition. Having regard to several aspects adverted to above and the stage when this petition is presented, this is not an appropriate case for this court to exercise the inherent powers to quash the proceedings. ( 4 ) BEFORE parting with this case, one more aspect may benoticed. The case has been registered for an offence under section 500, ipc for which maximum sentence prescribed is 2 years. Warrant case has been defined under section 2 (x) of the cr. P. c. as a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years and summons case means a case relating to offence and not being a warrant case. Therefore it is clear that the case has to be tried as a summons case. The learned magistrate therefore is expected to follow the procedure as prescribed by chapter 20 of the code of criminal procedure. Section 251 which occurs as the first section in this chapter enjoins the magistrate to state the particulars of the offence to the accused when he appears or is brought before him and he should be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. Section 251 which occurs as the first section in this chapter enjoins the magistrate to state the particulars of the offence to the accused when he appears or is brought before him and he should be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. It is not necessary to frame a formal charge. The records indicate that the case has been posted for recording evidence before stating the particulars of the offence as enjoined by section 251 of cr. P. c. again the learned magistrate has not passed any order, though the case has to be tried as per procedure prescribed for summons cases for any valid reason, he thought it fit to follow the warrant procedure. Therefore, the learned magistrate should proceed to comply with section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the first instance and thereafter post the case for recording evidence. ( 5 ) IN the result the petition is dismissed with the observationsmade as above. Any observation made in the course of this order shall not in any way influence the learned magistrate in disposing the case finally. Both the advocates are informed that the case shall be called before the learned magistrate on 3-6-1994 and they shall keep their parties present before the learned magistrate, on the said date. --- *** --- .