Judgment Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash order dated 12.3.1997 recorded by Sri Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Srivastava, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia, in Criminal Revision no. 174 of 1996 (Annexure-13) whereby and whereunder the order dated 14.2.1996 recorded by Sri B.R Singh, Judicial Magistrate, first class, at Kishanganj in Case no. 141(C) of 1995 was confirmed under which order the petitioner and others were summoned to face trial, the learned Magistrate having found the allegations to have been prima-facie proved under sections 448 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, in short, are that one Kirpanand Jha, who was occupant of quraters no. 64A/64B of N.R Railways, R.P.R Colony at Kishanganj, had filed a complaint (Annexure-1) against the petitioner, Ravi Amrohi, said to be working as Assistant Engineer in the N.R Railways at Kishanganj and others alleging therein that when the complainant returned home on 23.10.1994 from Katihar, witnesses told him that Railway Officials and Police were seen on 21.10.1994 (in his absence) near his quarters and in the evening they had seen the Railway Officials and other accused taking away the goods belonging to the complainant from inside the house, and keeping the same at the outside verandah. As allegations go, thereafter the complainant with witnesses went to his quarters and found the right side of the door tampered with but the lock to be intact. Thereafter he filed the complaint petition which, by order dated 24.10.1994 (Annexure-2) was referred to the Officer- in-charge of the concerned Police Station for institution of case and investigation. 3. It will further appear that on 23.2.1995 vide Annexure-3, the complainant filed a protest petition. It will also appear that after investigation the Police submitted final report (Annexure-4) finding the allegations to be absolutely false and recommending prosecution of the complainant/informant under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. On 28.3.1995, vide Annexure-5, the final report was accepted and the petitioner was directed to appear for his statement. It will also appear that after investigation the Police submitted final report (Annexure-4) finding the allegations to be absolutely false and recommending prosecution of the complainant/informant under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. On 28.3.1995, vide Annexure-5, the final report was accepted and the petitioner was directed to appear for his statement. Thereafter his statement was recorded and, as submitted, an enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code in short) was ordered in course of which three witnesses, whose statements are at Annexure-9, were examined Having gone through the complaint and materials on the record the learned Magistrate, where the case stood transferred earlier, recorded order dated 14.2.1996 summoning the accused to face trial. 4. Against that the petitioner and other accused preferred revision (Criminal Revision no. 174 of 1996), at Annexure-13, against that order which was decided by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia, on 12:3.1997 in which holding, after going through the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well statements of witnesses produced by the complainant, that a prima-facie case was made out against the petitioners, the learned court refused to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. This is the order that has been impugned in this petition. 5. It may be mentioned that at the admission stage itself notice was ordered to be issued against respondent no. 2, Kirpanand Jha, the complainant. In its note dated 12.5.1998 the office reported that the service report of notice was satisfactory. The respondent no. 2 did not appear. This petition was admitted for hearing by order dated 20.5.1998 and again notice was ordered to be issued against respondent no. 2 under registered cover. Thereafter, on office report, by order dated 10.8.2000 this Court accepted the service of notice upon respondent no. 2 to be valid. However, respondent no. 2 has not appeared nor did respondent no. 2 or any one on his behalf responded to the calls when this matter was taken up for hearing on the last day, and today. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned junior counsel to the Additional Advocate General were heard. 6. 2 to be valid. However, respondent no. 2 has not appeared nor did respondent no. 2 or any one on his behalf responded to the calls when this matter was taken up for hearing on the last day, and today. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned junior counsel to the Additional Advocate General were heard. 6. Argument of the learned counsel firstly was that on perusal of the materials on record as well the complaint petition it would appear that no offence whatsoever was made out against this petitioner, hence the impugned order was bad in law. Second argument of the learned counsel, with the help of various Annexures filed with the petition, was that this was a matter of evicting the complainant from unauthorized occupation of the quarters in question for which a Magistrate was deputed which was also supported by one of the witnesses of the complainant but even then the eviction could not be effected for the reasons mentioned in the report of the Magistrate which is at Annexure-18. Argument was that whatever was done was done by the persons concerned in course of discharging their public duties, who were government officials, hence protection of section 197 of the Code was available to them. 7. In so far as this second point is concerned, the arguments may be mentioned. The learned counsel had pointed out Annexure-10 which was copy of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 3.1.1996 in which the prosecution was directed to file in the court the sanction order, if obtained. Annexure-11 is order dated 10.1.1995 of the same court as per which the learned counsel for the complainant admitted that no sanction order was obtained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even after that, without considering as to whether or not the petitioner, an Assistant Engineer as he then was, but removable from service under orders of the Government, could be prosecuted without sanction of the appropriate government, the learned Magistrate had passed the order summoning him and other accused. 8. However, I will first examine the first point raised by the learned counsel. 9. 8. However, I will first examine the first point raised by the learned counsel. 9. From materials on record it will appear that though in Annexure-1, the complaint, which was sent to the Police for registering a case, this petitioner was named as an accused, the averments in the petition made it clear that the complainant himself was not present at the time of occurrence but when two days thereafter he was returning to his quarters, the witnesses told him that they had seen the Railway Officials and accused taking out some of his goods from house and keeping those in the verandah. 10. In his protest petition names were not mentioned but the main thrust was that the Police was conniving with the accused and that the complainant himself was receiving threatenings. 11. When the lower court accepted the final report submitted by the Police as aforesaid, the complainant was noticed to appear for his statement on solemn affirmation. On appearance of the complainant, his statement was recorded on solemn affirmation by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in which this witness, as pointed out, said that while he was returning his witnesses told him that they had seen Executive Engineer with police force and Railway Staff at the verandah of his quarters and they were talking about breaking open the lock but the Magistrate present there did not permit that. He further said that the same witness told him later that the lock was broken and all the goods were kept at the Police Station. It was pointed out that this petitioner did not say that any witness had named any one but said that the witness had told him about seeing the Executive Engineer and Railway Staff at his quarters, whereas the petitioner was Assistant Engineer. 12. It was submitted that thereafter on 15.5.1995 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the court of Sri B.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, first class, Kishangunj under the provisions of section 192 of the Code (Annexure-7) and by order dated 12.6.1995 the learned Magistrate noted about attendance of a witness, and adjourned the case. 13. Annexure-9 series contains the statement of three witnesses who were examined in course of enquiry, as submitted by learned counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that witness no. 13. Annexure-9 series contains the statement of three witnesses who were examined in course of enquiry, as submitted by learned counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that witness no. 1, Zainul Abedin, said about the presence of some persons at the official quarters of the complainant and about their keeping some goods outside the house, but he did not name any one and specifically said that he did not know their names. 14. Witness no. 2, Parmeshwar Jha, as pointed out, said that a Magistrate, Sri Amarnath Kant, and other officials were there but Magistrate was not permitting to break open the lock. He also said that in the evening he saw at the verandah of the complainant some officials and some goods. He also did not name any one. Learned Counsel further submitted that he also did not know the name of any witness. Learned counsel pointed out that the witness no. 3, Md. Muslim, also did not name any one and said that when in the evening he went there he saw the goods kept outside. 15. Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that in so far as allegations making out any offence was concerned, the complainant was not eye-witness, who said the witnesses had told him about presence of Executive Engineer which the petitioner was not, and the rest three witnesses did not say name of this petitioner or, for that matter, name of any of the accused. In that context the argument of the learned counsel was that in so far as this petitioner was concerned, there was no materials on the record to connect him with the crime except unsupported claim made in the protest-cum-complaint. It was pointed out that in protest-cum-complaint neither the name nor the designation was mentioned, and it was only in the original complaint, which was registered as first information report by Police, that the name of this petitioner was mentioned in the category of accused, the complainant admitting that he was not an eye-witness to any occurrence and that complaint also did not reveal that any offence was committed, i.e., that any of his goods was taken away or that any one had actually entered into his house. This being so, it was argued, the petitioner could not be connected with the alleged offence. 16. This being so, it was argued, the petitioner could not be connected with the alleged offence. 16. Section 200 of the Code provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint was to examine, upon oath, the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Under section 192 of the Code any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of offence, make over case for enquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him. 17. Section 202 of the Code runs as follows: "202. Postponment of issue of process:- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an enquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a Police Officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant." 18. Under this provision a Magistrate to whom a complaint has been made over under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issuance of process against the accused and inquire into the case himself. 19. Under this provision a Magistrate to whom a complaint has been made over under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issuance of process against the accused and inquire into the case himself. 19. Obviously accused could be summoned, without inquiry, under section 204 of the Code if the Magistrate taking cognizance is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. If not, the Magistrate may order for an enquiry under section 202 of the Code. 20. Once an inquiry has been ordered, materials brought on the record in course of enquiry must show that there was sufficient ground for proceeding in the case in which case alone Magistrate can issue process to the accused for his appearance, under section 204 of the Code. 21. Obviously, in this case an inquiry was ordered after the complainants statement was recorded on solemn affirmation. Now, the point to be considered is as to Whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding in the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order has found that there were sufficient materials on the record, to prima-facie prove the involvement of the petitioner. How the materials on the record did support that has not been mentioned in the impugned order or in the order of the learned Magistrate. No doubt, the learned Magistrate was not required to give out reasons in detail if the materials did provide sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case. 22. The complainant had filed complaint basing the allegations on the statement of other witnesses. In his statement on solemn affirmation he said that his witness had told him about presence of Executive Engineer though the petitioner was Assistant Engineer. Three witnesses, examined by him, did not name any one. 23. Obviously, therefore, there was no ground before the court to proceed against the petitioner, not to say of sufficient ground. 24. I have noted that arguments of the learned counsel in detail not for the purpose of critically evaluating the evidence or materials on record to find out as to whether or not there was evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner, but for the purpose of finding if there was any material on the record to warrant summoning of the petitioner to face the trial. 25. Sri Satish Kumar Sinha, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General no. 25. Sri Satish Kumar Sinha, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General no. Ill who appeared on behalf of the State, in course of arguments, fairly conceded that there was no material on the record to summon the petitioner to face the trial. 26. In writ petition of this nature this court interferes with the order of the revisional court in rare cases. I find, however, that it is one of those rare cases which warrants interference. No one can be asked to face trial in a criminal case without there having been any basis for such prosecution. 27. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.3.1997 is hereby quashed and the criminal proceeding arising out of Case no. 141 (C) of 1995, so far it relates to this petitioner, is also quashed. In view of the aforesaid finding this Court need not enter into the question of protection under the provision of section 197 of the Code.