JUDGMENT 1. - Heard, During the intervening night of 7th and 8th March, 1993, the occurrence in the present case is said to have taken place wherein injuries on both sides to the participants were caused. Whereas on the side of the petitioner, Ramniwas, Smt. Radha Devi and Dharampal sustained simple hurt with blunt as well as sharp weapons, on the other side, injuries to four persons including Balbeer deceased were caused. Both the parties reported the incident to the Police Station. On the report lodged by the other party, Crime No. 50/93 was registered for offence under sections 302, 307, 324, 323 IPC. Accused in that case i.e. members of the present party, are stated to have since been challenged and being tried for those offences in the court of Sessions. In the present case, Smt. Radha Bai had lodged FIR which registered as Crime No. 51/93 for offences under sections 447 and 323 IPC. After investigation, police submitted a final report under section 169 Cr.P.C. and such final report was also accepted by the Magistrate on 23.11.93. 2. It was after the acceptance of the final report in the present case that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 323, 324, 452/326, 325 and 307 IPC before the learned Magistrate. On 25.7.94, learned Magistrate appears to have required the counsel for the complainant to address the Court on the point as to whether the petitioner may maintain its complaint in respect of the injuries sustained by her and other members of the party, in exercise of the right of private defence of person by the other side. The petitioner prayed for time to argue the point. Despite repeated adjournments, no arguments in the case appear to have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner and finally, the complaint of the petitioner came to be dissed by the learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 23.11.93. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court has given no reasons in the impugned order justifying dismissal of the complaint. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate was bound to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner and to proceed with the same according to law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court has given no reasons in the impugned order justifying dismissal of the complaint. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate was bound to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner and to proceed with the same according to law. The impugned order runs as under- " Qfj;kfn;k xSj&gkftjA izksVsLV ,Iyhds'ku ,oa ,Q0vkbZ0vkj dk voyksdu fd;k A ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 Lohdkj dh x;hA izksVsLV ,Iyhds'ku vne gktjh esa [kkfjt dh x;hA ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fely fu;ekuqlkj ykSVkbZ tkosA " 4. It is clear that the learned Magistrate had given no reasons at all, save about absence of the complainant on 23.11.93 when the complaint was called for hearing. It is no doubt true that when the complainant does not appear to produce evidence in support of his complaint, the learned Magistrate may dismiss such complaint unless he feels that by such dismissal gross injustice is likely to cause in respect to a cognizable offence in which case he may, in his discretion, adjourn hearing of the case and require production of evidence from the concerned quarters. But that is not the position in the present case wherein the learned Magistrate has already accepted the final report submitted by the police. Such acceptance of the final report could have been made the basis for rejection of the complaint but learned Magistrate did not adopt the procedure prescribed by law before dismissing the complaint. 5. It is evidence that the final report had already been accepted by the learned Magistrate on 23.11.93. After receipt of complaint filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate could have dismissed it outright if in his opinion, such complaint did not disclose commission of any offence but if he was of the opinion that such a complaint disclosed commission of offence, he was free to examine the complainant under section 200 Cr.RC. and require him to produce his witness in support of his complaint and examine them under Section 202 Cr.RC. After having done that exercise, the learned Magistrate was required to hear the complainant and in case he was of the opinion that here were no good reasons for issuing summons to the persons named as accused in the complaint, he could have dismissed such a complaint under section 203 Cr.RC. After having done that exercise, the learned Magistrate was required to hear the complainant and in case he was of the opinion that here were no good reasons for issuing summons to the persons named as accused in the complaint, he could have dismissed such a complaint under section 203 Cr.RC. That procedure should have been followed by the learned Magistrate in the present case as for all practical purposes, the complaint filed by the petitioner after the acceptance of the final report by him, could not have been treated as a protest petition. The learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure prescribed by law and proceeded to dismiss the complaint solely on the basis of the result of investigation in the case registered on the report of the complainant and injured persons. I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate should examine the complainant under Section 200 Cr.RC. and then require her to produce her witnesses for examination under section 202 Cr.RC. and to produce other evidence also, if so required by him. After having completed enquiry under Section 202 Cr.RC. the learned Magistrate is required to hear the petitioner and then form his opinion whether to issue process against the accused persons or not. In making his opinion, in that behalf, the learned Magistrate may consider the negative report along with material therewith submitted report along with material therewith submitted by the police in petitioner's case. It would be after taking into account all the material so coming before the learned Magistrate that he is authorised to pass appropriate orders under section 203/204 Cr.PC. as the case may be. 6. it was reported that in the cross case, the persons accused in the present complaint, are already being tried. Proceedings of that case, which-is pending before the learned Sessions Judge shall not be stayed on the ground of pendency of the present enquiry proceedings in the present case before the learned Magistrate. 7. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is sent back to the learned -Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the directions given here in above and according to law. The petitioner may present herself and her witnesses before the learned Magistrate on 26.8.98. 7. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is sent back to the learned -Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the directions given here in above and according to law. The petitioner may present herself and her witnesses before the learned Magistrate on 26.8.98. In case the petitioner fails to produce herself and her witnesses on that day, the learned Magistrate may dismiss the complaint unless he thinks it proper to adjourn hearing of the case.Revision petition allowed. *******