JUDGMENT: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.- This criminal revision application has been preferred by petitioner (complainant) against the order dated 29th January, 2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in P.C.R. Case no. 61 of 2002, whereby and were under the court below after enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint petition on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The petitioner (complainant) filed the complaint petition against the accused, Kamlapati Singh, Officer-In-Charge of Maheshpur P.S. and 3-4 unknown police constables posted at the said Maheshpur PS. It was alleged that on 2nd March, 2002 at 5 P.M., the accused persons came at the residence of her father-in-law at village Bagduba, under Maheshpur PS. and then forcibly took her along with her child to Maheshpur P.S., without _her consent or consent of her mother-in-law. It was further alleged that when she was present at Maheshpur P.S., one Basukinath Gupta of village Sahar Gram arrived there, who talked with the Officer in-Charge (O.P. no. 2) of Maheshpur PS. and thereafter left the said police station. Then the Officer-in-Charge of Maheshpur PS., namely, Kamlapati Singh (O.P no. 2) assaulted her (complainant) by fists and slaps, and after pulling her hair, compelled her to give statement according to his wish in the murder case of one Arjun Bhagat (deceased), which took place on 24th February, 2002. The accused (O.P no. 2) also threatened her of life imprisonment if she did not agree. On the said day, she was directed to sleep in the Office Room of the P.S. and in the night, the Officer-in-Charge, Kamlapati Singh (O.P. no. 2) raped her by force. Thereafter she was raped a number of times by the accused, Kamlapati Singh (O.P. no. 2) for the next two nights. She out of fear of life and torture, had to surrender before the accused and had to agree to give statement as per wish of the accused. The complainant further alleged that she was produced before the S.P., Pakur on 6th March, 2002 where she was asked to give her statement as per his (O.P no. 2) direction. Again, on 8th March, 2002, the accused persons brought her to Pakur Court where she was asked to make statement against her husband and his brothers before a Magistrate under coercion and threat. 2) direction. Again, on 8th March, 2002, the accused persons brought her to Pakur Court where she was asked to make statement against her husband and his brothers before a Magistrate under coercion and threat. On the basis of such statement, her husband and brother-in-law were made accused in Maheshpur Police Station Case no. 20 of 2002, u/s 302/34 IPC. The complainant (petitioner) was examined on SA Four prosecution witnesses were also examined, namely, P.W. 1, Nakul Maraiya, father of the complainant; P.W. 2, Bhagwati Maraiya, mother-in-law of the complainant; P.W. 3, Bharat Yadav an independent witness and P.W. 4, Bhagmal Hembram another independent witness". P. W. 1, Nakul Maraiya, father of the complainant stated that the Daroga handed over his daughter, Sajni Maraiya (complainant) to him along with her child. His daughter told him that the Daroga snatched her ornaments. P.W. 2, Bhagwati Maraiya, mother-in-law of the complainant deposed that she came to know about the occurrence from the complainant. P.W. 3, Bharat Yadav also deposed that he came to know of the occurrence from the complainant. P.W. 4, Bhagmal Hembram in his evidence stated that the Daroga of the Maheshpur PS. took away the complainant, Sajni Maraiya in his jeep. When he protested, the Daroga stated that he would take the complainant at village-Sahargram where her father was' living. He further stated that after 14-15 days, when he met the complainant, she told him that the accused kept her in confinement in the Police Station for 3-4 days and forcibly compelled her to give statement against her husband and brothers. 2. Learned court below did to (sic not?) believe that the complainant was forced to depose before the Magistrate. On presumption that if the occurrence had actually taken place against the complainant or she was under pressure, then she would have expressed her apprehension before the Court where she gave her statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. Considering all the material evidences on record, the court below disbelieved the evidence of some of the witness on the ground that they were not eye witness and the other ground that there is no medical evidence to come to a definite conclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the accused. 3. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the O.P. no. 3. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the O.P. no. 2, who submitted that there was insufficient materials on record to summon the accused persons. 4. Now, it is a settled law that an enquiry u/s 202 Cr. P.C. is not in the nature of a trial. In law, only one trial in respect of any offence is permissible. Section 202 does not require any adjudication to be made about guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint is preferred. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. S.S. Khanna Vs. Chief Secretary, Patna, reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 593 [: 1983 PLJR (SC) 107] held as follows: "An enquiry under section 202 of the Code is not in the nature of a trial for there can be in law only one trial in respect of any offence and that a trial can commence only after process is issued to the accused. The said proceedings are not strictly proceedings between the complainant and the accused. A person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an accused until it is decided to issue process against him. Even if he participates in the proceedings under section 202 of the Code, he does so not as an accused but as a member of the public. The object of the enquiry Under section 202 is the ascertainment of the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for the issue of process to the person complained against or whether it is a baseless one on which no action need be taken. The section does not require any adjudication to be made about the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint is preferred. Such a person cannot even be legally called to participate in the proceedings under section 202 of the Code.........." 4. In this case, as the court below practically gave a detailed finding like a trial court after discussion of all the evidence and failed to consider the question whether there is valid foundation calling for the issue of process to the O.R no. 2 after considering the statement of oath of the complainant, statement of witnesses, result of the enquiry or investigation u/s 202 Cr. 2 after considering the statement of oath of the complainant, statement of witnesses, result of the enquiry or investigation u/s 202 Cr. P.C., this Court has no option but to set aside the order dated 29th January, 2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in P.C.R. Case no. 61 of 2002 and remit the case for a decision afresh, in accordance with law. 5. This criminal revision application is allowed, with the aforesaid observations.