JUDGMENT M.B.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Siddique, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. SC Shyam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Upon hearing the parties through their respective counsel and perusal of the materials before the Court, the following facts are ascertained: The present respondent, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, filed a complaint as against the present respondent, hereinafter referred to as the accused, in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Tura, West Garo Hills alleging commission of offences under Sections 417 418 420and 511/315 IPC. The complainant was an unmarried girl aged about 19 years and the accused was a police constable of 2nd MLP Battalion Goeragre, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya at the relevant time. The complaint is to the effect that by promising to marry her but without disclosing the fact that he was already a married man, the accused fraudulently and deceitfully induced her to have carnal knowledge with him during the nights of 17.02.2006 and 18.02.2006. Further according to the complainant, when she met the accused on 12.06.2006, she came to know that he was not interested to discuss anything about marrying her. Moreover, according to the complainant, on coming to know that she was pregnant as a result of their sexual relation, the accused instructed her to go to Tura Civil Hospital for getting abortion of his child. 2. On 18.09.2006, Additional District Magistrate, West Garo Hills passed an order registering a case on the basis of the said complaint and transferring it to Shri D.D. Sangma, Magistrate 1st Class for disposal. On 03.08.2006, an order was passed purportedly by the concerned Magistrate for issuing summon to the accused. It is to be noted that at the time of issuing the summon, the complainant was not yet examined in connection with her complaint. 3. On 05.09.2006, when both the parties appeared, the concerned Magistrate directed the complainant to supply a copy of the complaint to the accused and fixed 21.11.2006 for the said purpose. Before reaching the said date, the case was purportedly put up before a Lok Adalat but no attempt for settlement of the case could be made due to absence of the complainant. Before reaching the said date, the case was purportedly put up before a Lok Adalat but no attempt for settlement of the case could be made due to absence of the complainant. On 21.11.2006, after recording the fact of absence of the accused and the submission of the counsel of the complainant about inability of the complainant to be present due to her advanced state of pregnancy, the concerned Magistrate ordered for issuing bailable warrant of arrest as against the accused. On 06.03.2007, an order was passed withdrawing the case and thereafter transferring the same to Smt A.N.D. Shira for disposal. 4. On 06.03.2007, purportedly, the concerned authority to whom the case was transferred passed an order noting the fact of receiving the case on transfer from the learned ADM(J), fixing 26.03.2007 for recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses, if any, and directing to issue notice to the OP/accused through I/C Monabari for appearing on the date as fixed. On 26.03.2007, both the parties were present and 25.04.2007 was fixed for evidence of the complainant. On 25.04.2007, the statement of the complainant was recorded in the absence of the accused and 28.05.2007 was fixed for further evidence. On the same day, an order was passed in its effect for issuing non-bailable Warrant of arrest against the accused. 5. On 28.05.2007, the learned Magistrate recorded the fact of presence of the complainant with her counsel as well as the fact of surrender made by the accused with reference to the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued as against him. On a prayer made u behalf of the accused, he was allowed to go on bail on his furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of the like amount. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case till 20.06.2007 for evidence. 6. This case has been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC 1973 praying for quashing the proceedings of the CR Case No. 199/2006 pending in the Court of Smti A.N.D. Shira, Magistrate 1st Class at Tura alleging that the learned Magistrate committed illegalities and irregularities in the proceedings of the said case and that the complaint petition does not disclose any evidence. 7. It is well settled that while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. 7. It is well settled that while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. The said section envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction maybe exercised, namely, (1) to give effect to an order under the Code, (2) to prevent abuse of process of Court and (3) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The Courts have inherent power apart from expressed provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. The inherent power is to be exercised ex-debito justice to do real and substantially justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. 8. The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava IAS and Anr. 2006 CriLJ 4050 held at para 10, page 196 as follows: As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the powers requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage see Janata Dal v. HS. Chowdhary 1993 CriLJ 600 and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar 1964 Cri LJ1. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage see Janata Dal v. HS. Chowdhary 1993 CriLJ 600 and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar 1964 Cri LJ1. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in the Court which decides the fate of the accused person. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in the Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings (See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill 1996 CriLJ 381, State of Kerala v. OC Kuttan 1999 CriLJ 1623, State of UP v. OP Sharma 1996 CriLJ 1878, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397 , Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) AIR 1999 SC 3596 , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 1999 CriLJ 1833 and in State of Karnataka v. M Devendrappa 2002 CriLJ 998. 9. Keeping in view the above said well Settled principles of law, the facts and circumstances of the complaint case are to be considered. The learned Counsel for the accused revisionist submits that for failure to comply with the provisions and the spirits of Sections 200 202 and 203 of the CrPC 1973 before issuing the process as against the accused, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate in respect of the complaint case are liable to be quashed. 10. On perusal of the proceedings of the said complaint case, it is ascertained that before recording the statements of the complainant and her witnesses present on oath and without forming any opinion about existence or otherwise of sufficient ground for proceeding, the concerned learned Magistrate issued the process for securing the attendance of the accused. Having, regards to the provisions of Sections 200, 202 and 203 of the Code, and also having regards to the spirits of the said provisions, the learned Magistrate, on taking cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint, ought to have examined upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present and considered the materials for forming an opinion regarding the existence or otherwise of sufficient ground for proceeding as against the accused before issuing any process for securing his attendance. 11. 11. The learned Magistrate could have also, in exercise of the powers given by Section 202 of the Code, inquired into the case himself/herself or directed an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he/she thought fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding. In case of not finding sufficient ground for proceeding, it was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to dismiss the complaint by recording his/her reasons briefly for doing so. By not proceeding in the manner prescribed by law, the learned Magistrate committed irregularity in the proceedings of the said complaint case. 12. The above said irregularity is not however, sufficient to quash the complaint case and its proceedings. By securing the attendance of the accused person before forming any opinion about the existence of sufficient ground for further proceeding on the basis of the materials collected in the manner prescribed by law, no injustice and prejudice can be said, to have been caused to him in defending the case. The only prejudice caused to him is that he was compelled to attend in the proceeding before forming an opinion on the question if there was sufficient ground for proceeding further in respect of the said complaint case. In other words, the accused was compelled to appear before reaching the appropriate stage for the said purpose. 13 The complaint case is still at an initial stage of its proceedings and the irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate is not amongst the irregularities mentioned in Section 461 of the Code as those vitiating proceedings. Further, having regards to the provisions and the spirit of Section 465 of the CrPC, in the absence of anything showing a failure of justice arising out of the said failure to comply with the Sections 200 202 etc. of the Code, the said failure to comply with the provisions of the said Sections is not enough to vitiate the proceedings of the said complaint case at that early stage. It is to be noted that procedures are intended to sub serve the ends of justice and undue emphasis on mere technicalities which are not vital or important may frustrate the ends of justice. In my considered opinion, the said irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate shall not warrant quashing of the said complaint case and its proceedings. It is to be noted that procedures are intended to sub serve the ends of justice and undue emphasis on mere technicalities which are not vital or important may frustrate the ends of justice. In my considered opinion, the said irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate shall not warrant quashing of the said complaint case and its proceedings. The learned Magistrate shall have to take appropriate remedial steps so that the cause of justice does not suffer and that no prejudice is also caused to both sides. 14. In the light of the above considerations, the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused revisionist to the effect that in view of the failure to record the statement of the complainant and her witnesses and to comply with the provisions and the spirits of various Sections of the Code before securing the attendance of the accused, the proceedings of the complaint case are liable to be quashed is not acceptable and it is hereby rejected. 15. Another submission of the learned Counsel for the accused revisionist is that one of the alleged offences being under Section 315 of the IPC which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the said offence. Without expressing any opinion regarding the question if the complaint petition has made out a case for the offence under Section 315 of the IPC, it is to be pointed out that as per provisions of Section 190(1) of the CrPC, a Magistrate 1st Class is empowered to take cognizance of any offences upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offences. The term 'any offence' includes the said offence under Section 315 of IPC which is triable by a Court of Session. There is no any provision in the criminal procedure code debarring a Magistrate 1st Class from taking cognizance of an offence triable by a Court of Session. 16. No doubt, an offence triable by a Court of Session is to be tried by a Court of Session only. Taking cognizance of an offence does not however, involve any formal action or actions of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. 16. No doubt, an offence triable by a Court of Session is to be tried by a Court of Session only. Taking cognizance of an offence does not however, involve any formal action or actions of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. After taking cognizance of the offence and after taking necessary steps prescribed by law, if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence involved in the case is triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the case has to be committed to the concerned Court of Session as per provisions and spirit of Section 209 of the CrPC. The above said submission of the learned Counsel for the accused revisionist is not acceptable in law and as such it is also rejected. 17. The last point submitted by the counsel for the accused revisionist is that the complaint petition does not disclose any offence. According to the learned Counsel for the accused, on the basis of the allegations in the complaint petition, there was only a breach of contract. This submission is not also acceptable. On the basis of the allegations made in the complaint petition and the statement recorded to the effect that the accused fraudulently and deceitfully induced the complainant, who was an unmarried girl at the relevant time, to have carnal knowledge after promising her to marry but without disclosing her marital status, one cannot reasonably say that the allegations prima facie, are in respect of breach of a contract only. 18. In the light of the above discussions and having regards to all the relevant considerations including the initial stage of the complaint case, the nature of the allegations in the complaint petition and the interest of justice, the complaint case and its proceedings are not to be quashed. The prayer of the accused revisionist in this regard is rejected. This revision is disposed of with the direction that the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint case as per provisions of law. Since the complaint's statement has already been recorded, the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the examination of the witnesses of the complainant present if any, on the date to be fixed for the purpose. 19. This revision is disposed of with the direction that the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint case as per provisions of law. Since the complaint's statement has already been recorded, the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the examination of the witnesses of the complainant present if any, on the date to be fixed for the purpose. 19. After having due regards to the provisions and the spirit of Section 202 of the CrPC, the learned Magistrate shall have to pass an appropriate order under Section 203 of the CrPC. Till the date of passing the above said appropriate order under Section 203 of the CrPC, the learned Magistrate shall proceed irrespective of the fact if the accused is present or not during the course of proceedings. In case, the learned Magistrate opines that there is sufficient ground for proceedings and if the accused is absent, the learned Magistrate shall have to issue a fresh process as per provisions and spirit of Section 204 of the CrPC and proceed in accordance with law disregarding the fact of the accused having been released on bail earlier. 20. The records of the complaint case be sent back to the concerned Magistrate along with a copy of this order for proceedings in accordance with law in compliance with the directions of this Court. No order as to costs