Order These are a group of revision petitions preferred against the Orders of the Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, arising out of complaints filed by one J.P. Sanghi, purporting to act as the Director-in-charge of the United Industrial Corporation, Ltd.. against (1) S.M. Hussain who had been the Managing Director of the said Corporation, and (2) P.B. Rajagopalan, the Chief Accountant of the Praga Tools Corporation. It is necessary to indicate how and under what circumstances these complaints are sought to be made. The Praga Tools Corporation at Hyderabad is a limited concern whose managing agents were the Industrial Trust Fund of Hyderabad since January, 1948. The Minister of Finance, Government of Hyderabad as Chairman, the Director, Commerce and Industries Department, an ex-officio director and two other Secretaries of the Government constituted the Board of Directors of the Industrial Trust Fund. For facility of management of the Praga Tools Corporation, the Industrial Trust Fund in its turn appointed ‘The United Industrial Corporation, Ltd.,‘as its representative. The complainant and one of the accused S.M. Hussain were managing the affairs till 31st March, 1954, when the agreement of agency between the Industrial Trust Fund and the United Industrial Corporation was terminated. In the terms of agreement between the Industrial Trust Fund and the said Corporation there was a clause which said that if there was any matter in dispute between them, such matter should be referred to the arbitration of the Chief Minister of the Hyderabad State and in accordance with this clause in the agreement, the question of the termination of the agency was referred to the then Chief Minister Shri B. Ramakrishna Rao who gave his award justifying the termination of the agency. This award was given by the sole arbitrator on 25th May, 1956. The present complaints were filed by J.P. Sanghi on 28th July, 1956. The complainant averred that accused No. 1, S.M. Hussain, was the Managing Director of the Corporation which happened to manage the affairs of the Praga Tools Corporation and in his capacity as such was in sole charge of the cash, and other assets of the Praga Tools Corporation and the Industrial Trust Fund. The 2nd accused P.B. Rajagopalan is the Chief Accountant of the said Praga Tools Corporation. Both of these misappropriated large sums of money belonging to the Corporation and making up false accounts. The 2nd accused P.B. Rajagopalan is the Chief Accountant of the said Praga Tools Corporation. Both of these misappropriated large sums of money belonging to the Corporation and making up false accounts. The complainant, therefore, laid a complaint against them for offences under sections 403, 406 and 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant’s statement was recorded and admitting the complaint for offences under sections 409 and 477, Indian Penal Code, the Magistrate directed the issue of summons to the accused, under section 204, Criminal Procedure Code, The accused being aggrieved by this order of the Magistrate, preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. The Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order directing the issue of summons. The same order was passed in a set of revisions filed before him being R. C. Nos. 248 to 257 of 1956. The order of the Sessions Judge in these revisions is impugned by the accused here in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious, filed with a view to harass the petitioners; even if the allegations made in the complaint were taken to be true they could not be held to constitute an offence under the Penal Code. The complaints therefore should have been dismissed in limine. Reading sections 200 to 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, together, it would appear that a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint on any of the following grounds: firstly, if he upon the statement made by the complainant reduced to writing under section 200 finds that no offence had been committed; secondly where he distrusts the statements made by the complainant or he may direct a further enquiry. Having examined the complainant the Magistrate must either issue summons, or order enquiry under section 202 or dismiss the complaint under this section. The Magistrate has stated in his order that the complaint is supported by the sworn statement, hence the complaint be admitted in Register No. 2 for offences under sections 409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code and summoned the accused. This order would indicate that it appeared to the Magistrate that there was prima facie reason to suppose the accusation to be true. The Sessions Judge has refused to interfere with the exercise of the discretion exercised by the Magistrate. The question if. could this Court interfere at this stage ? This order would indicate that it appeared to the Magistrate that there was prima facie reason to suppose the accusation to be true. The Sessions Judge has refused to interfere with the exercise of the discretion exercised by the Magistrate. The question if. could this Court interfere at this stage ? It has to be observed that this Court is being moved in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and the order that is sought to be revised is one made under section 204, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 204 only contemplates the issue of process where the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. No enquiry by the Magistrate is contemplated at this stage. An extensive discretionary power is conferred on the Magistrate in his capacity as Magistrate and this discretionary power is to be exercised juridically according to rules of reason and justice and to act within the four corners of the Code. It is now well known that the High Court would interfere with such orders only when exceptional grounds exist. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. But the powers of the High Court in revision are unfettered in that it could quash the proceedings even after a charge had been framed. An interference would be called for only when the High Court comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the Sessions Judge is perverse. Learned counsel urged that the complainant had instituted these criminal proceedings maliciously as he had been thrown out of the United Industrial Corporation. I may herein observe that an attempt to determine the motives by which complaints are actuated would open out a very wide and speculative field of enquiry. Therefore in determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding,, the Court cannot allow itself to be influenced by a consideration of the motive by which the complainant may have been actuated in moving the matter. When the offence is against public interests, the truth of the complaint and the amount of evidence of the crime alone have to be considered. Where there is a prime facie case the Magistrate must proceed although he may consider a civil remedy to be more convenient and appropriate. It may be that the same set of facts may give rise to a civil action or may be enough to launch a criminal prosecution. Where there is a prime facie case the Magistrate must proceed although he may consider a civil remedy to be more convenient and appropriate. It may be that the same set of facts may give rise to a civil action or may be enough to launch a criminal prosecution. In such cases if there is no mens rea and the ingredients to make up an offence under the Penal Code are wanting, no criminal action would lie but the remedy would be only by way of a civil action, It is too early to predicate anything about the charges made against the accused. The Magistrate can always discharge the accused and throw out the charge if he is convinced on an examination of the witnesses that the alleged acts of the accused predominantly partake of the nature of a dereliction of duty, or of misfeasance or malfeasance. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere at this stage with the order of the Sessions Judge confirming the order of the Magistrate. This order will cover Crl. R.C. Nos. 349 to 353 of 1957. There is a batch of revisions being Crl. R.C. Nos. 354 to 358 of 1957 wherein there is besides accused 1 and 2, S.M. Hussain and P.B. Rajagopalan, another person treated as accused 3, Motilal R. Patny. As regards accused No. 3, the allegation in the complaint is rather novel. The complainant says ‘As this isa fresh case the complainant proposes to implead the 3rd accused as well in view of his definite and clear complicity in this case as an abettor’. The definition of an abettor is a person who instigates any person to do that thing. ‘Instigate’ would mean ‘urge’, ‘incite’. The complainant has not chosen to state specifically as 10 what part accused 3 played in the alleged misappropriation or falsification of accounts. There must have been an active suggestion by accused 3 for committing he said acts. An omission to act would render him liable to punishment only when the law places a duty to act, on such, a person. These facts have to be alleged by the complainant before ever he could make him a co-accused. The complainant should allege facts, which if relied upon would constitute the offence charged. An omission to act would render him liable to punishment only when the law places a duty to act, on such, a person. These facts have to be alleged by the complainant before ever he could make him a co-accused. The complainant should allege facts, which if relied upon would constitute the offence charged. No act of accused 3 to facilitate the commission of the act of misappropriation or falsification of accounts has been urged in the complaint. I, therefore, quash the order for the issue of of summons to accused No. 3. With this modification, the order of the Sessions Judge would stand. Another category of these revision petitions are those wherein the Magistrate called for a detailed report from the Police under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, on a complaint filed by the same complainant against the same two accused. After receipt of the police report when the case came on for hearing, the complainant was absent. The Magistrate, both because the complainant was absent and the police report indicated that on the allegations made, no charges could be established, dismissed the complaint. The complainant preferred a revision against that order of the Magistrate holding that he found no sufficient grounds to proceed further and dismissing the complaint. The Sessions Judge, however, thought that the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint more due to the default of the appearance of the complainant than on the merits of the case and he was of the opinion that to say that ‘no sufficient grounds for proceeding further’ were not sufficient to dismiss the complaint. He, therefore, set aside the order and directed the District Magistrate to either try the case himself or transfer the same to one particular Magistrate. It is against this order that the accused have preferred revisions Nos. 339, 340 and 341 of 1956. Yet another category of cases are cases where the Magistrate called for Police reports under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code and the police report had not been received when the complainant was absenting himself at the hearing The Magistrate, therefore, on the ground that the complainant was absent and had not deposited the necessary expenses for calling the police report held that there was no ground to proceed further. He, therefore, dismissed the application of the complainant under section 203 for default of prosecution. He, therefore, dismissed the application of the complainant under section 203 for default of prosecution. Here again the complainant preferred revisions to the Sessions Judge who came to the conclusion that section 203 did not contemplate a dismissal of complaint for default of prosecution and in a warrant case instituted on the basis of a complaint, the case could be dismissed only under section 259, Criminal Procedure Code. He, therefore, held that the order of the Magistrate was wrong in law and set it aside and directed the District Magistrate to try the case himself or to transfer it to another Magistrate. This order is impugned by the accused in revisions. These revisions are 342 to 348. I have already discussed in detail in dealing with the other criminal revisions that it is open to a Magistrate to dismiss the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, if he is satisfied, after considering the statement of the complainant on oath that there is no sufficient ground to proceed. In some of these cases, the Magistrate called for a police report and being satisfied that there was no prima facie case made out, dismissed the complaint. In others, he dismissed the complaint on account of the absence of the complainant. In this he had a wide discretion.It could not be said that the Magistrate did not exercise a judicial discretion in dismissing the complaint. All that the Magistrate has to do is to consider the statement on oath of the complainant and where the matter had been referred to the police for enquiry the police report as well and form his own conclusions regarding the question of prima facie case. There is no obligation cast on the Magistrate to give an opportunity to the complainant to rebut the statements made in the Police Report. The Sessions Judge, in my opinion, has fallen into an error in holding in a warrant case the complaint could be dismissed only under section 259, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 259 empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused prior to the framing of the charge. A dismissal of the complaint under section 203 in the case of a charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, was considered to be justified in the circumstances of the case where the Magistrate was of the opinion that there was no sufficient ground made out to proceed with the enquiry. A dismissal of the complaint under section 203 in the case of a charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, was considered to be justified in the circumstances of the case where the Magistrate was of the opinion that there was no sufficient ground made out to proceed with the enquiry. Vide Kundaniyil Ayamutty v. Bapputy alias Muhammad and others1. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that the order of the Sessions Judge directing an enquiry again cannot be upheld and is set aside. The result is that in so far as Revision Petitions Nos. 354 to 358 of 1957 (five) are concerned, except to the extent of the complaint against accused 3, which proceedings are quashed, the revisions in so far as accused 1 and 2 are concerned, are dismissed. Revision Petitions Nos. 339 of 1957 to 348 of 1957 are allowed and the order of the Sessions Judge set aside. A.S.R. ----- Petitions Nos. 339 to 348 of 1957 allowed; 349 to 353 of 1957 dismissed; 354 to 358 of 1957 allowed in part.