Judgment 1. This petition is filed by the complainant questioning the order dated 06.02.2006 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Guntur in Criminal Revision Petition No.63 of 2004 confirming order dated 15.03.2004 passed by the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur in C.F.R. No.9039 of 2003 by which the Magistrate refused to take the complainant on file and dismissed the same under Section 203 Cr.P.C after making due enquiry. 2. The petitioner gave report to Arundelpet Police of Guntur alleging that on 28.07.2003 at about 8.30 P.M A-1 and A-2 who are father and son called him as 'MADIGA NAKODAKA' and proclaimed to kill him and that A-1 caught hold of his shirt and that when he questioned A-1 about his high handed activity, A-2 abused him in the name of his caste in vulgar language and beat him with hand on his back. The police after investigation filed final report before the Magistrate referring the case as false. Thereupon, the petitioner filed private complaint in the lower Court. Admittedly there are civil disputes between the parties with regard to money transactions and those disputes are stated to be pending in courts. During enquiry before the Magistrate, the complainant and one witness on his behalf were examined. 3. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that the complainant in his sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate corroborated allegations in the complaint and that therefore, the Magistrate should have taken the case on file and should have issued summonses to the respondents 2 and 3. Placing reliance on Chandra Deo Singh V. Prakash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 it is contended by the petitioner's counsel that object of enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C is to ascertain truth or falsity of the complaint. The Supreme Court observed therein: "No doubt, one of the objects behind the provisions of S. 202,cr. P. C is to enable the Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. But there is also another object behind this provision and it is to find out what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. But there is also another object behind this provision and it is to find out what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. It is the bounden duty of the Magistrate while making an enquiry to elicit all facts not merely with a view to protect the interest of an absent accused persons, but also with a view to bring to boor: a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Whether the complaint is frivolous or not has, at that stage, necessarily to be determined on the basis of the material placed before him by the complainant". In the same decision, the Supreme Court quoted observations in an earlier Supreme Court decision in Vadilal Panchal V. Dattatraya Dulaji (1961)1 SCR 9 to the effect that the enquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining truth or falsehood of the complaint or ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the persons concerned. The Supreme Court finally observed on this point: "No doubt, as stated in sub-sec. (1) of S. 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 complaint and the statements made before him by persons examined at the instance of the complainant". 4. Thus, the Magistrate is expected to apply his/her mind while taking cognizance of the offences against the accused and issuing summons to the accused. It cannot be said that the Magistrate has to issue process the moment when sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses disclose ingredients of the relevant offence. Truth or otherwise of the statements also is to be gathered by the Magistrate during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Statements of complainant and his witnesses cannot be taken for granted on their face value. Intrinsic quality of the statements is the criterion and not the face value of the statements. In the case on hand, the Magistrate really applied his mind on intrinsic value of the statements and came to the conclusion that they cannot be relied upon. Intrinsic quality of the statements is the criterion and not the face value of the statements. In the case on hand, the Magistrate really applied his mind on intrinsic value of the statements and came to the conclusion that they cannot be relied upon. Further when final report of the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C was staring at the complainant, it is all the more necessary for the Magistrate to scrutinize statements of the complainant and his witnesses with reference to other material on record and prima facie probabilities of the case. It cannot be said that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint after making due assessment of available material on record. In this case, not only the Magistrate, but also the Additional Sessions Judge after scrutiny of entire material on record and prima facie probabilities came to concurrent conclusion that the complainant's case is not true. After disposal of Criminal Revision Petition, complainant wants this Court to scrutinise the matter again. This Court is of the opinion that it would be nothing but entertaining a second revision petition as against the revisional order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. It is not permissible in law. There are no valid or legal grounds for the complainant in this petition. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed.