Honble VYAS, J.–By filing the present miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the judgment/order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Gangapur in Criminal Case No. 33/2005, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed complaint before the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Gangapur against the non-petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B, I.P.C. It is contended that under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upon the complaint the learned Magistrate was under obligation either to send the complaint for investigation while exercising power under Section 190, Cr.P.C., or, to proceed to grant opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence after examination of the complaint as provided under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case the complaint was filed by the complainant petitioner on 21.3.2005 and the learned Magistrate, on the next date i.e., 22.3.2005 rejected the complaint without sending for investigation under Section 156(3) or to proceed in accordance with Sections 200 and 202 of the Code and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the complaint is totally erroneous and against the principles of natural justice and settled position of law. (3). Learned counsel for the non-petitioners supported the order passed by the Trial Court. (4). I have perused the complaint as well as order passed by the Trial Court. Before initiation of proceedings, the Magistrate is required to take cognizance of offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 190 of the Code empowers the Magistrate with ample power, so much so that cognizance of the offence may even be taken by him upon his own knowledge. Thus application of mind to the facts placed before the Court is explicit in proceeding under Section 190 and, therefore, where the Magistrate, upon application of mind to the facts, is not convinced as to commission of a cognizable offence, he is required to act under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case, in the facts and circumstances, he is not satisfied for proceeding under Section 200 or Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may, however, be borne on the mind that notwithstanding the power conferred upon the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code, the proposition does not detract from the power of the Magistrate to reject a complaint where ex facie the complaint on its facts appears to be vexatious and frivolous for all probabilities. But, justice survives by recognition of the society. It must of necessity be taken care of that justice not only requires to be done, it must also appear to have been done. Simply rejecting the complaint without resorting to known procedure of law will only tantamount to denial of justice and would fall on the line against the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the complaint was filed on 21.3.2005 and the same was dismissed on 22.3.2005 by the learned Magistrate without resorting to either of the provisions, more particularly when observations of the Court below in the impugned order indicate that investigation in the matter was required. This is an irregularity and, therefore, the impugned order dated 22.3.2005 deserves to be set aside. (5). Consequently, this petition is allowed and order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Gangapur is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. _