Judgment : Per R. REGUPATHI, J. 1. The petitioner is a proposed accused for an offence punishable under Sections 465, 379 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi. The learned Magistrate after taking the private complaint on his file, without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code, straightaway issued summons to the accused for appearance and for answering the charges. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code having not been followed. Sworn statement of the complainant has not been taken and materials have not been received and only on satisfaction of those materials, if prima facie case is made out, thereafter such issuance of summons could be done. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2005) MLJ (Crl) 166 : 2004 (4) CTC 608, wherein in paragraphs 13 and 14 it is held as follows: 13. Section 200 contemplates a Magistrate taking cognisance of an offence on complaint to examine the complaint and examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present if any. If on such examination of the complaint and the witnesses, if any, the Magistrate if he does not want to postpone the issuance of process has to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 if he comes to the conclusion that the complaint, the statement of the complainant and the witnesses has not made out sufficient ground for proceeding. Per contraif he is satisfied that there is no need for further inquiry and the complaint, the evidence adduced at the stage has materials to proceed, he can proceed to issue process under Section 204 of the Code. 14. Section 202 contemplates postponement of issue of process. It provides that if the Magistrate on receipt of the complaint if he thinks fit, to postpone the issuance of process against the accused and desires further inquiry into the case either by himself or directs an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may do so. In that process if he thinks fit he may even take evidence of witnesses on oath, and after such investigation, inquiry and the report of the Police if sought for by the Magistrate and if he finds no sufficient ground for proceeding he can dismiss the complaint by recording briefly the reasons for doing so as contemplated under Section 203 of the Code.” 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard. It has been submitted that the private complaint has been taken on file. 4. I have perused the materials available on record. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the process issued against the petitioner is quashed. However, after conducting inquiry, if the learned Magistrate finds materials to proceed against the petitioner, process may be issued. This petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, Crl. M.P.No. 5681 of 2005 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 are closed.