JUDGMENT 1. - Criminal Revision No. 493/97 is directed against the order dated 11.9.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in criminal case No. 364/97 discharged the accused persons of offences under sections 452, 447, 354, 509, 342, 323 & 329 r/w. Section 144 of the IPC. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 710/97 is directed against the order rejecting the application of the petitioner to lead pre-charge evidence. Since both the orders are inter related, both the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The case was commenced on the complaint of the complainant present applicant i.e. it was a warrant case started otherwise than on a police report. Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. is very clear in this regard and valuable right is created in favour of the complainants to lead evidence before charge. The learned Magistrate committed material irregularity in not leading this evidence before charge merely on the ground that the trial was pending for more than four years. Several opportunities have been granted to the complainant to lead pre charge evidence. However, looking to the facts that the accused persons are police officers and the fact that the first information report of the complainants was not accepted by the police, the learned Magistrate who have proceeded with caution and in any event should have given adequate cogent reasons for denying the valuable right of pre charge evidence to the complainant. A perusal of the impugned order does not disclose in such application of mind to the facts of the case the consequent order discharging the accused also therefore suffers from material irregularity of not giving opportunity of leading pre-charge evidence. Interest of justice requires that justice must be done to all in all cases whether on a police report or otherwise and particularly when they are complainants of portion against Government Officers adequate opportunities to proof at pre charge stage the allegation against Government Officers be given to the complaining party. 3. In the result the petitions succeed and are allowed. The order of discharge dated 11.9.1997 is quashed. The order dated 4.9.1997 rejecting the application under section 244 of the Cr.P.C. is set aside. The learned Magistrate is requested to give permission to lead pre-charge evidence to the complainant and direct him to finish the same within a period of six months. The order of discharge dated 11.9.1997 is quashed. The order dated 4.9.1997 rejecting the application under section 244 of the Cr.P.C. is set aside. The learned Magistrate is requested to give permission to lead pre-charge evidence to the complainant and direct him to finish the same within a period of six months. He may thereafter consider the case for framing of charges in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******