R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE complainant, petitioner herein by, filing the present petition under Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') has invoked the inherent power of the Court to set aside the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh, affirming the order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the case of the complainant is that while he was in possession of a portion of Anabedi land appertaining to plot No. 924 of Sundargarh town, the two accused persons along with their labourers trespassed upon the said land on 29-12-1992 at about 9. 00 a. m. and destroyed the trees and plant raised by him. On the next day and thereafter they committed further crime, inasmuch as they removed the bricks, logs and trees, dug earth and forcibly made some illegal construction thereon. To their such action when the complainant protested, he was abused and threatened. A report of the incident was made at the Town Police Station, Sundergarh, but as no action was taken by the police, the complainant approached the learned S. D. J. M. , Sundargarh, by filing the complaint and prayed for taking legal action in accordance with law against both the accused. ( 3 ) UPON such complaint, the learned Magistrate examined the complainant and thereafter ordered for holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code. Pursuant to such order, the complainant examined six witnesses and the learned Magistrate on consideration of the evidence so adduced, came to hold that there is no reasonable ground for proceeding against the accused persons and consequently dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved thereby the complainant approached the revisional court and the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, upon hearing the parties, concurred with the views of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision. ( 4 ) SHRI R. N. Panigrahi, counsel for complainant vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint on the grounds set out in the impugned order. ( 4 ) SHRI R. N. Panigrahi, counsel for complainant vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint on the grounds set out in the impugned order. He urged that discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses and pros and cons thereof, delayed filing of the complaint, non-filing of the copy of the F. I. R. and non-examination of the boundary witnesses of the disputed land should not have been taken into consideration for prima facie satisfaction as to whether sufficient grounds aremade out to issue process against accused persons. Those are the matters for the trial Court to find whether the accusations made against the accused person have been brought home or not. The learned Sessions Judge, contended the counsel, equally fell into error, in as much as he concurred with the ultimate conclusion of the learn Magistrate and observed that the later is not debarred from going into merit of the case at the initial stage of taking cognizance of the offence. In reply, Shri S. K. Behura, counsel for accused persons, advanced lengthy argument in support of the views of both the Courts below and contended that no fault can be found with the learned Magistrate in entering into the merit of the case at the initial stage of the proceedings. The two accused persons being men of high status, inasmuch as one of the accused, namely, Idwin Kul Bhusan Rejhi, being an I. A. S. Officer, it could not be believed that they took law into their own hands and committed the crime as alleged and the dispute between the parties being civil in nature, ultimate chance of conviction is bleak. Further, there has been long unexplained delay in approaching the Court and filing of the complaint is a counter blast to an earlier complaint filed against the sons of the complainant. He therefore, submitted that the orders of both the Courts below being based on sound reasonings, this Court should be slow to invoke the inherent power and interfere with the same. ( 5 ) IT needs no emphasis that it is the right of everyone to bring an offender to justice, but such right is subject to certain restrictions imposed by law. Equally it is also the right of everyone that he is not unnecessarily harassed, by a false and frivolous accusation. ( 5 ) IT needs no emphasis that it is the right of everyone to bring an offender to justice, but such right is subject to certain restrictions imposed by law. Equally it is also the right of everyone that he is not unnecessarily harassed, by a false and frivolous accusation. Courts have great responsibility in this respect. Provisions like Sections 200, 202 and 203 are introduced in the Code to act as a compromise between these two rights. In a case arising out of complaint the accused has no role to play before he is summoned to face the accusation. So in such a situation when complaint is made, duty is cast upon the Magistrate to elicit all facts to protect the interest of an absentee accused. But for doing so he is to act within the parameters of law and cannot go beyond the jurisdiction and enter into the arena of the trial Court for a finding as to sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence for the purpose of issuing process. On receipt of a complaint and after examining the complainant if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the case, he may issue process against the accused. However, for reasons to be recorded in writing if he postpones the issue of process, he may either enquire into the case himself or call for a report from a police officer after investigation or direct an investigation to be made by any other person as he thinks fit, as envisaged in Section 202 of the Code. For determining the question whether process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate is to find is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether the evidence is adequate to base conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of issuing process. The expression 'sufficient ground for proceeding' occurring in Section 204 is equivalent to prima facie evidence in support of the allegation made in the complaint. See Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan, AIR 1980 SC 1780 : (1980 Cri LJ 1271 ). The expression 'sufficient ground for proceeding' occurring in Section 204 is equivalent to prima facie evidence in support of the allegation made in the complaint. See Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan, AIR 1980 SC 1780 : (1980 Cri LJ 1271 ). In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 397), the Court after considering the matter observed (para 8):"the Courts have also pointed out in these cases that what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction. The learned Judges in some of these cases have been at pains to observe that an enquiry under Section 202 is not to be likened to a trial which can only take place after process is issued, and that there can be only one trial. No doubt, as stated in Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 itself, the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, but the Magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at the enquiry which would naturally mean the complaint itself, the statement on oath made by the complainant and the statement made before him by persons examined at the instance of the complainant. "the aforesaid view was followed in a later decision in the case of Nagawa v. Veeranna, AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976 Cri LJ 1533 ). In the said case, the Court has laid down the scope of powerof the Magistrate under Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204 of the Code. It is stated that for coming to a decision as to whether process should be issued or not, the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. There is a very thin line demarcation between probability of conviction of an accused and establishment of a prima facie case against him. The Magistrate has been given undoubted discretion in the matter, but the discretion has to be exercised judicially. There is a very thin line demarcation between probability of conviction of an accused and establishment of a prima facie case against him. The Magistrate has been given undoubted discretion in the matter, but the discretion has to be exercised judicially. The following guidelines have been laid down where the Court can refuse to issue process against the accused :" (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever rich a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects. Such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. " ( 6 ) IN the present case, the reasonings given by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint being contrary to law, are not sustainable. Delayed filing of complaint should not have been considered as a circumstance to postpone issue of process against the accused persons. This is a matter which is exclusively within the domain of the trial Court while deciding the case on merit. The next, which weighed with the learned Magistrate to dismiss the complaint is the discrepant evidence of the witnesses examined during enquiry. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate without making any reference to the evidence, observed in a slipshod manner that there are a lot of discrepancies regarding participation of the accused persons in the alleged incident. Assuming that there are some discrepancies, but unless the same make the prosecution allegation inherently improbable or absurd, the proceeding cannot be thrown out at the threshold. It may be reiterated that for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code what is necessary for the Magistrate is to find in the existence of a prima facie case. Assuming that there are some discrepancies, but unless the same make the prosecution allegation inherently improbable or absurd, the proceeding cannot be thrown out at the threshold. It may be reiterated that for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code what is necessary for the Magistrate is to find in the existence of a prima facie case. Therefore, on a reading of the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence led in support thereof if he is satisfied that prima facie case is made out, then without passing a formal order about his satisfaction can issue process against the accused. But when the complaint is dismissed, it must be by a speaking order briefly recording the reasons for so doing. The learned Magistrate in the present case while passing the impugned order did not keep himself alive to the provisions of law, consequent upon which there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice. Equally the revisional Court fell into error. By a cryptic order it declined to interfere with the impugned order of the Magistrate and dismissed the revision. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where interference is called for to secure ends of justice, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. ( 7 ) IN the result, orders of both the Courts below, are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned S. D. J. M. , Sundargarh, to apply his judicial mind to the materials available on record and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Order accordingly.