JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.9.2004 passed in Cr. Revision No. 94 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC. 1 Jamshedpur, whereby while setting side the order of dismissal of complaint passed by the learned Magistrate in C1-1269 of 2003, the Revisional court had directed the Magistrate to issue summons against the petitioners calling upon them to face trial for the offences under Sections 498A/323/147/148/149 IPC. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the opposite party No. 2 had filed a compliant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.12.2003 which was registered as C1-1269 of 2003 against the present petitioners alleging , inter alia, that her marriage with the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 27.5.2002 where after she came to live with her husband at her matrimonial house in the company of her parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law. She learnt within two months of her marriage that her husband, in fact, was an unemployed and he had sold away two of her gold finger rings and when the complainant asked her husband, he abused and assaulted her threatening not to interfere with his life style. Later, the husband as well as her in-laws began making demand for a sum of rupees two lakhs by way of dowry on the plea that the money would help the husband in establishing business of his own and they began to pressurize the complainant to fetch money from her father. The demand having not been fulfilled, the husband and other members of the family began subjecting her to neglect, ill treatment and cruelty, both mentally and physically. The complainant has given incidents of the acts of cruelty to which she was subjected by her husband and other members of her matrimonial family accusing each of the accused persons for inflicting torture upon her in various manners. She has also alleged that the husband had declared that he would contract a second marriage with the daughter of one Pir Saheb Rashid Raja with whom he had developed illicit relation and the husband, his sister and parents used to assault her demanding her consent for the second marriage of her husband. The complainant alleges that ultimately after having been assaulted mercilessly, she was made to flee away from her matrimonial house and to return to her parents. 3. The complainant alleges that ultimately after having been assaulted mercilessly, she was made to flee away from her matrimonial house and to return to her parents. 3. On receipt of the complaint petition filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offences transferred the case to the court of the learned Magistrate for inquiry and disposal under Section 192(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The transferee court proceeded to conduct inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and in course of inquiry, had recorded statements of the complainant and her witnesses on solemn affirmation. After perusing the allegations in the compliant petition along with the statements of the complainant and her witnesses recorded in the inquiry, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by order dated 27.5.2004 on the ground that there is delay of more than nine months in filing of the case and that the allegations are vague and unspecific and the case has been filed only with intent to harass the accused persons and to prevent the husband from his intended second marriage. Against the aforesaid order, the complainant preferred a criminal revision No. 94 of 2004 which was finally disposed of by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 by the impugned order dated 7.9.2004 after hearing the opposite party No. 2/complainant only, since the present petitioners were not made parties to the said revision application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after going through the materials on record, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate by recording observation that the allegations in the complaint read with the statements of the complainant and her witnesses do make out a prima facie case for the offences against the present petitioners and on such findings, directed the learned Magistrate to issue processes against the accused persons directing them to face trial in the case. 4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional court primarily on the ground that the Additional Sessions Judge has exceeded his authority by directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial against the petitioners, although under the procedural law, he could have, at best, directed the inquiring Magistrate to conduct further enquiry and to record a fresh order on the basis of the materials available on record. Learned Counsel further explains that even while considering the revisional application, it was incumbent upon the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to issue notice to the petitioners giving them opportunity of being heard, before passing the final order in the revision application. Adverting to the other grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint as filed by the complainant is entirely with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners and the allegations are totally vague, unspecific and baseless and there are vital contradictions in the statements of the compliant and her witnesses, vis-avis the allegations made in the compliant petition and further more, the complaint has been filed with inordinate delay without explaining the reasons therefor. 5. As against this, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 claims that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which has been passed after assigning reasons for the findings arrived at. 6. The main ground as raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the order impugned is bad in law on account of it being passed against the provisions of Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question which calls for determination is whether while exercising revisional powers to decide as to whether the order of dismissal of complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure suffers from any illegality or infirmity, the revisional court has authority to direct the inquiring Magistrate to issue processes against the accused persons and whether any such order can be passed without hearing the accused persons? 7. Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages separate provision in respect of the powers of the Revisional court in such matters. Section 398 Cr.P.C. reads as under: 398. 7. Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages separate provision in respect of the powers of the Revisional court in such matters. Section 398 Cr.P.C. reads as under: 398. Power to order inquiry: "On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (4) of Section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this Section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made. 8. The provisions of Section 398 Cr.P.C. needs to be read in continuation of the provisions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. the High Court, or any Sessions Judge, may examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court. The power of the Sessions Judge to interfere in revision is not confined to cases of improper discharge or improper dismissal of a complaint. The Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 401 Cr.P.C. the court, may in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391. It implies therefore that the power is reserved with the revisional court to reverse any finding of the lower court and give its own findings of fact appearing on the record. Under Section 401 Cr.P.C. the court, may in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391. It implies therefore that the power is reserved with the revisional court to reverse any finding of the lower court and give its own findings of fact appearing on the record. The revisional court has, therefore committed no fault in reversing the finding of the Magistrate and giving its own finding taking the prima facie view of the allegations made in the complaint read with the statements of the complainant and her witnesses on solemn affirmation, as to what offence has been committed by the accused prima facie. The powers under Section 398 Cr.P.C. are wider and are in addition to the powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and it enables the Revisional court to order for further enquiry in cases where the complaint is dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The claim of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that learned Addl. Sessions Judge could not have directed the learned Magistrate to impose a direction on the court below to :process against the petitioner, appears therefore to be misconceived and misplaced and is not acceptable. 9. As regards the other ground that the impugned order of the Addl. Sessions Judge is bad on account of the fact that the petitioners were not given opportunity to be heard, this ground is also not acceptable. Admittedly, the complaint of the opposite party No. 2 was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, there was no occasion for the issuance of any process against the petitioners who were cited in the complaint as accused. As such, there was no necessity to implead the petitioners in the revision application or to issue notice to the petitioners for allowing them an opportunity to be heard on the revision application. As such, there was no necessity to implead the petitioners in the revision application or to issue notice to the petitioners for allowing them an opportunity to be heard on the revision application. learned Counsel refers in this context to the proviso to Section 398 Cr.P.C. and submits that the provision of Section 398 Cr.P.C lays down specifically the procedure to be adopted in cases where the complaint is dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C and the proviso to Section 398 Cr.P.C. declares that no direction under the Section can be made in respect of any person who has been discharged, unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause as to why such direction should not be made. Learned Counsel submits on the above premises that it was incumbent upon the revisional court to issue notice to the petitioners and give them an opportunity to be heard on the revision application. The above argument of the learned Counsel is again misconceived and misplaced. The word "discharge" under Section 398 Cr.P.C. means discharge of an offence relating to the charge within the meaning of Sections 227, 239, 245 and 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Refusing to proceed further after issuance of process is discharge. Where the complaint was dismissed and no process was issued to accused persons to appear and face trial, it cannot be pleaded that the accused was discharged from the offence. As such, the proviso to Section 398 Cr.P.C. does not come to the aid of the petitioners in any manner. 10. As regards the further ground raised by the petitioners that the complaint was filed with mala fide intention of causing harassment to the petitioners and that the allegations are vague and unspecific and that the complaint was filed after a considerable delay without offering reasonable explanation for the same, these are grounds which the petitioners could have taken by way of their defence only at the trial and not at the stage where the issue before the Magistrate is to assess whether on the basis of the materials available on the record, any prima facie case is made out for any offence or not. At this stage, it is not within the competence of the Magistrate to sift the evidence and to decide the issue as if it was conducting a trial. 11. At this stage, it is not within the competence of the Magistrate to sift the evidence and to decide the issue as if it was conducting a trial. 11. From perusal of the impugned order of the revisional court, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the materials available on record including the allegations in the complaint petition read with the statements of the complainant and her witnesses recorded on solemn affirmation and has found a prima facie case for the offences against the accused persons. It was within the competence of the revisional court to assess the materials available on the record and to give its findings on the basis thereof as to whether prima facie case is made out for any offences. There is no infirmity in the impugned order of the revisional court. For the reasons aforesaid, 1 do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. The order dated 28.2.2005 whereby further proceeding of the learned court below was stayed, is hereby vacated.