Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who are accused in Complaint Case No. 703(c)/91, have impugned the legality of the order dated 17 -2-1992 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Patna, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for dropping the complaint was turned down on the erroneous impression that he Had no power to drop the proceeding since cognizance was taken and processes issued. 3. The Supreme Court has considered this question in K.M. Mathew V/s. State of Kerala and another, in which case the Supreme Court held that under Sec. 204. Cr.P.C. even after issue of process in summons case accused can plead absence of any triable case against him and Magistrate on being satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint has discretionary power to order dropping of the proceedings against the accused. Jagannatha Shetty, J. in para 8 of the Report held as follows: "It open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. It is his judicial discretion. No specific provision is required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already-been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused." 4. The order of the Magistrate, is therefore, manifestly wrong and must be quashed. Accordingly his application is allowed and the order dated 17-2-1992 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Magistrate, who is seisin of the case to decide the applications filed by the petitioners in accordance with law.