Judgment D.S.Dhaliwal, J. 1. This judgment will also dispose of Cr. Misc. No. 9414 of 1990 (Upendra Narayan Sinha V/s. Dinesh Thakur and Ors) and both these petitions are directed against one and the same order dated 28-7-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur whereby he took cognizance of offences under Sec. 147, 323, 341, 484 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners on a criminal complaint filed by Dinesh Thakur, opposite party No.1. 2. Binita Kumari, petitioner NO.2 is the wife whereas petitioner Pawan Kumari and Shailendra Kumar are mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of Dinesh Thakur, the complainant. Allegations in the complaint in brief are that on 4-10-1990 (sic) at about 6.30 P. M. the aforesaid petitioners along with Upendra Narayan Sinha (petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 9414 of 1990) came to sweet shop "Hari Misthan Bhandar" where he had gone for delivery Of milk and forcibly took him to the Railway track and snatched Rs. 800.00 from him. They also forcibly obtained his thumb impressions on certain stamped and blank papers. It is alleged that petitioner NO.2 was having illicit relation with Upendra Narayan Sinha and that the mother and the brother of petitioner No.2 were conniving with her. 3. The complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, on 91-1990. Since the lawyers were on strike on that date, the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on 20-2-1990. He took cognizance of the offences but postponed issuance of the process as he was of the view that the matter required enquiry. He then transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, for enquiry and disposal. The transferee court vide impugned order dated 21-7- 1990 issued processes by way of summons against all the accused for facing trial under Secs. 147, 323, 341,384 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire enquiry is illegal being not in consonance with the provision of Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have transferred the complaint for enquiry to another Magistrate when he had himself embarked upon the enquiry by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision reported in Jitan Tiwari V/s. State of Biharand others. 5. I find merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners. In the scheme of Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the Magistrate before whom a complaint is filed does not feel persuaded to issue process and opts for holding an enquiry, he has two options open to him i.e. to hold enquiry himself or to direct investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as he think fit. 6. Here in this case the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate indicates that he had taken cognizance and had also embarked upon enquiry by recording the statement of the complainant. In this situation, it was incumbent upon him to conclude the enquiry himself and he could not have passed over the case for enquiry to another Magistrate. The enquiry held by the transferee Magistrate, therefore, cannot be said to be valid and issuance of process on strength thereof is not sustainable on the eye of law. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, though, unable to support the impugned order contended that the case may be remitted to the lower Court for fresh enquiry. I find myself unable to agree with the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the reason that a period of more than five years have passed since the alleged occurrence and none of the offences alleged against the petitioners is punishable with imprisonment of more than three years. 8. For the reasons aforesaid I allow both the petitions and set aside the impugned order dated 28-7-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Samastipur in C. R. Case No. 20/90. T. R. No. 1132/90 and quash the proceedings consequent thereupon.