JUDGMENT 1. - Issue notice for final disposal. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied a copy of the petition to learned Public Prosecutor. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and is being decided at the admission stage. 3. By the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code' hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhariawad District Udaipur (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. against the accused persons named in the complaint, was dismissed 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned and the complaint. 5. It appears that the proceedings under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code were initiated and the SDM, Dhariawad while inquiring into the matter with regard to cause of death of Gotiya, the father of petitioner,. concluded the investigation and has not found the case. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint before the trial Court against the three persons namely Hurji, Roopa and Kaniya alleging therein that they caused the murder of petitioner's father Gotiya and caused disappearance of evidence. 6. The trial Court initiated the proceedings with the complaint under procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code and held that the order passed by the SDM is appealable and no such appeal has been filed. In my view, the approach of the trial Court is contrary to the provisions of law. The inquiry contemplated under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code are altogether different by the Executive Magistrate then that of the trial of the complaint case by the Judicial Magistrate. The conclusion arrived at by the Executive Magistrate cannot be said to have been the conclusion of holding and trying a regular complaint case. The inquiry contemplated under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code are altogether different by the Executive Magistrate then that of the trial of the complaint case by the Judicial Magistrate. The conclusion arrived at by the Executive Magistrate cannot be said to have been the conclusion of holding and trying a regular complaint case. What the trial Court has to do is on receipt of the complaint either to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, reducing in writing the substance of such examination signed by the complainant and the witnesses as also by the trial Court or to sent the matter for investigation to the Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code. In the instant case, from a bare perusal of the complaint, the offence, noticed above, are disclosed. It was for the trial Court to proceed in accordance with the provisions provided under Chapter XVI of the Code and therefore, without holding the "inquiry, dismissing the complaint, cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the complaint case in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code.Petition allowed. *******