SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ( 1 ) A short question raised for consideration is as to what is the scope of enquiry u/s. 202 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on what materials, the Magistrate has to base his order for dismissal of complaint u/s. 203 Cr. P. C. ? ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the petitioner herein filed a criminal complaint under section 436/341. P. C. against the respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First class, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur. This complaint was filed on 20/11/2004. The allegations in the complaint are that on 11/4/2004 at about 3 p. m. , all the accused persons (respondents herein), in furtherance of their common intention, came to the Bad! of the complainant and caused mischief by putting fire to the straw of paddy (Puwal) of the complainant, thereby causing damage to the said property. The further allegations are that a portion of verandah was also burnt due to the said act. In support of the aforesaid complaint case, the complainant examined himself as witness No. 1 and thereafter he examined three more witnesses namely Nanu Prasad Kashyap, witness No. 2, kunti Bai,. witness No. 3 and Bhagwat, witness No. 4. Out of these 4 witnesses, Kunti bai was examined as an eye-witness, who deposed that she saw the respondents putting fire to the said straw of the complaint. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate also called for a report from the concerned Police Station. The police report was submitted on 3-12-2004. In the police report, it is stated that on the first informatipn report lodged by the complainant, Crime No. 70/2004 was registered u/s. 436/34 of the I. P. C. and was taken into investigation. During the course of investigation, the stattements of Pekulal kashyap,. Amavat Kashyap, Smt. Kunti Bai (witness No. 3), Sitaram Kashyap and Smt. Bedia Bai etc. were recorded and since nobody came forward to depose that the mischief was caused by the proposed accused persons, therefore, a final report was attached to the F. I. R. It is also mentioned in the police report that none of the witnesses stated that they had seen the accused persons putting the said straw (Puwal) on fire. were recorded and since nobody came forward to depose that the mischief was caused by the proposed accused persons, therefore, a final report was attached to the F. I. R. It is also mentioned in the police report that none of the witnesses stated that they had seen the accused persons putting the said straw (Puwal) on fire. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments, dismissed the aforesaid complaint on the ground that during the course of police investigation, the present eye witness namely Kunti Bai had not stated that she had seen the accused persons putting the straw on fire, therefore, prima facie there appears to be no reason to register a case against the accused persons and to issue a process against them and in this manner he dismissed the complaint on 4/4/2005. Against the aforesaid order, a criminal revision was filed by the petitioner before the revisional Court and the revisional Court also dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the Magistrate. It is in this manner, the present petition u/s. 482 cr. P. C. has been filed before this Court. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised the point that the Magistrate was not competent to look into the contents of the earlier investigation of the Police for the purposes of testing the veracity of the eyewitness particularly in the circumstance when the witness is saying that she was not at all examined by the police during the course of investigation of the aforesaid crime no. 70/2004. He raised the point that the aforesaid action taken by the Magistrate was beyond his jurisdiction and also beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 202 (1) Cr. P. C. and the conclusion arrived at on the basis of such enquiry vitiates and the Order of dismissal of the complaint is unsustainable in the eye of law. ( 6 ) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Magistrate Was empowered to look into the contents of the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation of the First Information report lodged by the complainant and if he was satisfied that the witnesses were not telling the truth, perusing the aforesaid material, he was fully competent to pass an order u/s. 203 Cr. P. C. for dismissal of the complaint on the basis of such material also: ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Misc. Petition. ( 8 ) IN AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963 (2) Cri lj 397), (Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another), the Apex Court held that for determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. As stated in sub-section (1) of Section 202 itself, the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, but the magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at the enquiry which would naturally mean the complaint itself, the statement on oath made by the complainant and the statements made before him by persons examined at the instance of the complainant. The Apex court further held that since the object of an enquiry under Section 202 is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the Magistrate acting under Section 203 has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion, he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded in an enquiry under Section 202, or statements made in an investigation under that section, as the case may be. He is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. Where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused. He is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. Where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused. ( 9 ) THE wordings of Section 203 are also clear to show that if, after consideration of the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and all the witnesses and the result of the enquiry or investigation, if any, u/s. 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no "sufficient ground" for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint and in every such case, he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. The words "sufficient grounds" used by the Legislature in section 203 is construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the persons accused by the evidence of the witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit. This clearly means that if in the opinion of the Magistrate, a reasonable degree of credit is not attached to the testimony of the witnesses examined before him for the purpose of his satisfaction regarding prima facie case, and he is not satisfied, then, the Magistrate would be fully competent to dismiss the complaint under the provisions of Section 203 Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) NO doubt, at the stage of issuance of process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are "sufficient grounds" for proceeding against the accused. But this satisfaction must be based upon the materials collected during the course of enquiry conducted u/s. 200/202 Cr. P. C. and the magistrate is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. The statements independently recorded by the police during the course of investigation, though on the first information report of the same crime, would not be looked into by the Magistrate for the purpose of satisfying himself that there is "sufficient grounds" for proceeding and for issuing a process against the accused for the simple reason because these are not the materials collected during the course of enquiry u/s. 202 Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, it is held that during the course of enquiry u/s. 202 (1), the Magistrate is entitled to rely upon the materials i. e. , the complaint itself and the statment of the complainant on oath and the statements of witnesses examined at the instance of the complainant and the result of the enquiry or investigation, if any, conducted u/s. 202 or the materials collected under this section, as the case may be, and he will not be entitled to look into other materials either to base his order for dismissal of complaint u/s. 203 or to issue a notice u/s. 204 Cr. P. C. ( 12 ) IN the present case, the order of the magistrate would show that he had discarded the evidence of witness No. 3 Smt. Kunti Bai on the ground that she had not made this statement at the time of investigation of police u/s. 161 Cr. P. C. when the police was investigating the matter on the basis of F. I. R. No. 70/2004 lodged by the complainant. The learned Magistrate completely lost sight of this fact also that Kunti bai in her statement (para 2) has categorically stated that the police had not taken her statement till the date of said deposition on 3-2-2005 after the first information report was lodged. Since the Magistrate has considered the statement not recorded during the enquiry u/s. 200/202 (1) Cr. P. C. and has based his decision on the material collected during the independent police investigation in which a final report has already been filed by the police, his order passed u/s. 203 Cr. P. C. clearly vitiates as the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by looking into the other materials beyond the materials collected during the investigation under chapter XV of the Code of Criminal procedure and the order passed on such extraneous material cannot be sustained. ( 13 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate as well as by the Revisional Court are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate for passing an appropriate order on the basis of complaint and material placed before him, during the course of enquiry u/s. 200/202 (1) Cr. P. C. , in accordance with law, keeping in mind the principles referred to above. Petition allowed. --- *** ---