ORDER: The petitioner/complainant on the file of Human Rights Judge and I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders dated 27.7.2000 dismissing the complaint. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The complaint was filed on 4.7.2000 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem under Sec.2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act. The petitioner is the owner of the lands bearing S.No.62/1 and 2 in Deevatipatty Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem. His father had leased out the same to one Natesa Gounder. There is a place of worship used by the local Muslims in S.No.61. A-1 offered to part with some area in his portion of the land in favour of the Muslims for their worship during Ramzan and Bakrid festivals. However, there is a regular Mosque elsewhere in the village. The local Muslims moved the then Thasildar of Omalur for resurvey of the land by way of oral request. The Thasildar directed A-4 and A-5, who are the FIRKA Surveyor and the VAO to measure the land and to fix boundary stones thereon. They while fixing the boundary stones had willfully encroached upon the land of the petitioner and it was done without notice to him. The petitioner came to know about this in the month of December, 1999. He is a Physician employed in Chennai. Since he is an absentee landlord, his absence in the village had been exploited by these accused. Inspite of telegram and complaint to the higher officials, no action was taken. A-4 and A-5 had planted three boundary stones in the patta land belonging exclusively to the petitioner. He also intimated to A-6 Inspector of Police under a written complaint. He had colluded with other accused and also did not take any action on this complaint. The petitioner called upon the Thasildar in his office and requested him to resurvey the land in his presence after giving him due notice. He was sent out using abusive and filthy language in the presence of many persons in the office. A-2 had executed his limits by being discourteous to the petitioner. It was also reported to Sub Collector at Mettur and the Collector at Salem. Later, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without even recording the sworn statement of the petitioner returned the complaint holding that the complaint disclosed violation of property right of the individual. A-2 had executed his limits by being discourteous to the petitioner. It was also reported to Sub Collector at Mettur and the Collector at Salem. Later, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without even recording the sworn statement of the petitioner returned the complaint holding that the complaint disclosed violation of property right of the individual. It was re-represented on 6.7.2000 and after recording the sworn statement dismissed the complaint on 26.7.2000 and aggrieved against this, the present revision petition has been filed. The respondents have been served, but none of them appeared in person or engaged any counsel. The petitioner appearing in person filed written arguments and also cited about 15 authorities in support of his case. 3. The point that arise for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct? 4.Point: The petitioner filed a complaint under Sec.2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 before the Human Rights Court, namely, C.J.M., Salem. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the Court has been constituted for the purpose of dealing with violations of right to life, liberty, equality and dignity of an individual. The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with a case of civil nature for which a separate forum has been set up in the judicial hierarchy. The complainant is a Doctor by Profession and even if there is any grievance in respect of this survey conducted by the Thasildar, Omalur, he has to seek only civil remedy before the Court concerned and it appears that the complainant wanted to avoid payment of Court fees. Since the complaint exhibits a dispute of civil nature, it was dismissed under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. 5. The petitioner appearing in person contended that the learned C.J.M., overlooked the fact that he has not prayed for any civil remedy. He never intended to circumvent the law and he being a Physician can very well afford Court fee. The officials had wilfully planted three boundary stones in the patta land belonging to him and it amounts to wilful trespass. The learned Magistrate returned the complaint and again it was represented. The learned Magistrate had misinterpreted the ruling cited by him. The non-registration of case by A-6 amounts to dereliction of statutory duty. The officials had wilfully planted three boundary stones in the patta land belonging to him and it amounts to wilful trespass. The learned Magistrate returned the complaint and again it was represented. The learned Magistrate had misinterpreted the ruling cited by him. The non-registration of case by A-6 amounts to dereliction of statutory duty. The return of the complaint by the learned Magistrate itself is against all the necessary ingredients of violation of right to equality and dignity and the learned Magistrate failed to follow the mandatory provision to examine all the witnesses listed in the complaint before dismissing the complaint under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. The complainant has made out a prima facie case regarding the violation of right to equality and dignity and ought to have taken the complaint on file and disposed of the same in accordance with law. In any event the Court below erred in dismissing the complaint as holding that it is a civil dispute and as such the order is liable to be set aside. 6. It is seen from the complaint filed by the revision petitioner against 6 named persons that he had cited about 7 witnesses and also relied upon 7 documents. Only the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and impugned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. When the complaint has been filed by the revision petitioner, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to record the statement of all the witnesses under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. and then only come to the conclusion whether the complaint can be taken on file and issue process to the accused or whether the complaint can be dismissed under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. But, so far as the present complaint is concerned, the learned Magistrate has not chosen to examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint. There is no record to show that the complainant failed to produce any witness for examination by the Court. No opportunity was also given to the petitioner to examine these witnesses cited in the complaint. Under the circumstances, in view of the non-examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Court below has failed to adhere to proper procedure. 7. The Court below dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the dispute is one of civil nature. Under the circumstances, in view of the non-examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Court below has failed to adhere to proper procedure. 7. The Court below dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the dispute is one of civil nature. The Court can come to the conclusion only after examination of all witnesses cited in the complaint and there is nothing in the order to show as to why other witnesses cited in the complaint were not examined. On a bare reading of the complaint would indicate that the officials have planted three boundary stones without proper authority and without giving notice to the petitioner concerned. But, at the same time the complainant had stated that he went to the office and met the officials and he was not treated courteously and some of the officials also used abusive language in the presence of other persons in the office and thereby they failed to discharge their duty. One other contention raised by the complainant is that he approached the authorities to resurvey the area in his presence and it was also refused. The petitioner also contacted the Inspector of Police and according to the complainant he failed to register the case. In short, the petitioner in person contended that there is a statutory duty on the part of the Inspector of Police to register a case and investigate the same and he having failed to do the same is bound to be proceeded under the Human Rights Act. 8. The petitioner relied upon Lakshman Jena v. Sudhakar Palta Singh, A.I.R. 1969 Ori. 149, that the materials on which the Magistrate has to act in disposing of a complaint petition under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. are expressly limited by the Section itself to (i) statement on oath, if any, of the complainant and the witnesses produced by him, and (ii) the result of the investigation or inquiry under Sec.202. The investigation by the police had not been ordered by the Magistrate under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. and as such the statements made by witnesses before the police during such inquiry or the result of the inquiry embodied by the police in the final report cannot be looked into by the Magistrate in dealing with the complaint under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. 9. The investigation by the police had not been ordered by the Magistrate under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. and as such the statements made by witnesses before the police during such inquiry or the result of the inquiry embodied by the police in the final report cannot be looked into by the Magistrate in dealing with the complaint under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. 9. He also relied on (1867)8 The Weekly Reporter (Crl.) 65, that if a complaint is duly made before a Magistrate, and the Act imputed appears to amount to an offence, and there is prima facie reason to suppose the accusation true, the Magistrate is bound to proceed, though he may consider a civil suit more applicable. 10. He also relied on Ramaswamy Iyengar In re: (1922)23 Crl.L.J. 691, that a Court is bound to examine the complainant under Sec.200, Crl.P.C. and the omission to do so is a serious irregularity which in general prejudice the complainant, and justifies interference by the High Court in revision. Reliance is also placed on Sri Nath Educational Society, Sirsa v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1996 All. 187, Govindaraja Pillai v. Thangavelu Pillai, 1983 M.L.J. (Crl.) 646 and Gokul Chand v. Mahabir Misir, 1913 Crl.L.J. 412, wherein it is observed that the entire evidence for the prosecution should have been received unless for some very strong reason the Magistrate considered that evidence unnecessary. 11. He also relied on Banerjee v. S.Kemp and others, 8 C.W.N. 1086 for the proposition that it is improper for a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint while sitting in his private room and without giving the complainant or his pleader an opportunity of being heard. It has been held in Nagu Thevan v. Periakaruppan Thevar, A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 184, that when the complaint prima facie disclosing offence of cheating, dismissal under Sec.203, Crl.P.C., is not proper. He also relied on 1982 Crl.L.J. 1912 and also on A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1607 relating to the scope and purpose of the power to dismiss a complaint. Reliance is also placed on P.S.Ramasami Nadar v. R.Viswanathan and others, 1957 Crl.L.J. 673 Narayanaswami Chetty v. Vadivelu Chetty, (1911)12 Crl.L.J. 123 and A.I.R. 1950 East Punjab 18, wherein it is observed that the Sessions Judge can direct further enquiry in case of dismissal of complaint under Sec.203 without issuing notice to accused. 12. He also relied on I.L.R. 13 Bom. 12. He also relied on I.L.R. 13 Bom. 590 and also on Bishan Das and others v. The State of Punjab and others, (1962)2 S.C.R. 69 , wherein it is stated that a Magistrate cannot dismiss a complaint under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. until he has examined the complainant to see whether there is prima facie evidence of a criminal offence. In exercising his discretion under Sec.203, the Magistrate ought not to allow himself to be influenced by a consideration of the motive by which the complainant may have been actuated in moving in the matter, nor by any other consideration outside the facts which are adduced by the complainant in support of his complaint. 13. It is therefore clear from the aforesaid decisions as well as the discussions that the Court below had disposed of the case in haste without applying the proper procedure. The learned Judge ought to have examined all the witnesses cited in the complaint and then only come to the conclusion whether there is sufficient ground to proceed further in the matter. The language employed under Sec.203 is clear that the Court is bound to take into consideration the statement of a complainant as well as other witnesses and then only pass an order in accordance with law. Considering the fact that all the witnesses cited in the complaint were not examined by the Court below, I am of the view, it is just and necessary to set aside the order passed by the Court below and issue suitable directions to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 14. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the Court below dated 27.7.2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint and thereafter, hearing the petitioner pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court below on 4.4.2001.