Judgment Naresh Kumar Singh, J. This is an application for quashing the entire including the order dated 6.3.91 passed in complaint case No. 89 C/87 whereby the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate ordered to prosecute the petitioner for offences under sections 149, 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act, and issued summons to the petitioners. 2. The opposite party filed a complaint on 3.3.87 against 17 persons including 16 petitioners alleging that in 1st December 1986 at about 9.10a.m., they surrounded Urmila Devi (deceased) and on the order of petitioner nos. 1 and 2, petitioner no. 3 fired and killed the deceased at the spot. The police had registered kharagpur P.S. case no. 169/86 u/ss. 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act, in respect of the alleged murder on the very date of the occurrence. A final from was submitted in the case on 30.5.89 which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1.9.89. Further proceeding in the complaint case after the examination of the complaint – opposite party on S.A. on 25.3.87 was postponed under section 210 Cr. P.C. on the ground that the police investigation in respect of the same occurrence was in progress. On 6.9.89 i.e. after acceptance of the final from in the police case on 1.9.89 the learned C.J.M. examined one witness in course of enquiry u/s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the ‘Code’) and on 30.3.90 transferred the case to the learned sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate for further enquiry in course of which altogether six witness were examined passed the impugned order dated 6.3.91 directing issue of summons to the petitioners for their trial in the case. 3. Sri Braj Kishore Prasad learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the impugned order had been vitiated on account of the fact that the learned C.J.M. who was already in the midst of making an enquiry on a complaint u/s. 202 of the Code and in course of which he had examined one witness and had fixed a number of dates for conducting the enquiry had no jurisdiction in law to transfer the case for further enquiry within the meaning of the provisions of section 192 of the Code. On behalf of the petitioners reliance was placed on a decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Smt. Pawan and others Vs. State of Bihar 1995 (2) BLJ 566 . 4. Mr. On behalf of the petitioners reliance was placed on a decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Smt. Pawan and others Vs. State of Bihar 1995 (2) BLJ 566 . 4. Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh learned council appearing for the opposite party, however contended that this court ought not to persuade itself to invoke its inherent powers to quash the criminal prosecution only on the basis of some technicality of law. He argued in the alternative that in case the court felt inclined to quash the prosecution for non-compliance with certain provisions of the Code regarding holding of an enquiry and issued of process, interest of justice demanded that after quashing the impugned order directing issue of summons the matter should be remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to continue the enquiry into the complaint before the enquiry in to the complaint before the enquiry was over to the learned S.D.J.M. u/s. 192 of the Code Mr. Prasad, however contended that the occurrence having taken place more then 10 years justice to make any order for holding the enquiry from the stage left by the learned Chief Magistrate after quashing the prosecution based on the orders passed by the leaned S.D.J.M. when the whole order was completely vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. 5. Where is no dispute with regard to the legal position that as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having embarked upon an enquiry u/s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in course of which be examined a witness also was required to complete the enquiry himself. In other words it was incumbent upon him to conclude the enquiry and he could not have made over the enquiry to another Magistrate u/s. 192 Cr. P.C. in the circumstance the enquiry held be the transferee Magistrate in course of which five witnesses for the complainant were examined and the order issuing processes against the accused were not valid and they were not sustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order taking cognizance and directing issued of processes against the petitioners accused were therefore, an abuse of the process of court and deserve to be quashed and I order accordingly. 6. In so far the prayer made by Mr. The impugned order taking cognizance and directing issued of processes against the petitioners accused were therefore, an abuse of the process of court and deserve to be quashed and I order accordingly. 6. In so far the prayer made by Mr. Singh is concerned that the case may be remitted to the lower court for fresh enquiry which prayer it is significant to not the in connection with the murder of the lady in respect of which the enquiry was being held a police case had been registered and the police after investigation had submitted final report. It also appears that for an occurrence on the day the lady was murdered in connection with another murder of one Ramdeo Singh, Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, the police had registered Kharagpur P.s. case no. 168/86 and the opposite party the complainant was one of the accused in the said case. As a Matter of fact the complaint had been filed by the opposite party from custody in connection with that murder case. It has been brought on the record by means of a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners that some accused including the petitioners have also been convicted for offence u/s. 302 I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with the case of the Mukhiya. In the circumstances I am firmly of the view that the interests of justice do not demand that an enquiry in a complaint case in respect of the murder of the lady should be held afresh after about 10 years of the alleged occurrence. The prayer for a direction for further enquiry in the complaint case dose not impress and is rejected. 7. In the result this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance as also the criminal prosecution of the petitioners in the complaint case in question are hereby quashed. Application allowed.