JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order of the trial Court whereby the trial Court has closed the proceedings with out any conclusion. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 363, 366A and 376 Cr. P.C. against specific respondent. On the next date, the learned Magistrate had recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and proceeded under Section 97 Cr.P.C. to search for the prosecutrix. On 27.8.2011, in pursuance of the search warrant, the prosecutrix Kalpana has been produced before the trail Court and the trial Court, without enquiring into the matter, closed the proceedings. Aggrieved by this order, this petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The only contention of the present petitioner is that when a complaint has been submitted before the trial Court and the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has been recorded, the trial Court should proceed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. But the trial Court has, without assigning any reason, closed the proceedings and his prayer is that proper investigation should be done in his complaint. 5. The provisions of Section 202, Cr.P.C. reads as under: "202. Postponement of issue of process.-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may if he thinks fit, and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings." 6. Looking' at the above provision of Section 202, Cr.P.C. it was obligatory for the concerned Magistrate that on receipt of a complaint of an offence, he should enquire into the case himself or direct investigation by a police officer or by other person as he thinks for the purpose of deciding. Whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Looking' at the above provision of Section 202, Cr.P.C. it was obligatory for the concerned Magistrate that on receipt of a complaint of an offence, he should enquire into the case himself or direct investigation by a police officer or by other person as he thinks for the purpose of deciding. Whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. But the trial Court has, without enquiring or investigating the matter has closed the proceedings which are illegal and perverse and hence the order dated 22.8.2011 whereby the proceeding has been closed is liable to be quashed. 7. The other contention of the present petitioner is that the prosecutrix be also handed over to the present petitioner. Suffice it to say that the present petitioner is free to move before the concerned Court for the custody of the prosecutrix Kalpana. 8. In view of the above, this misc. petition is disposed of with the direction that the trial Court should enquire into the case himself or.direct that the investigation be made by a police officer as provided under Section 202, Cr.P.C.Petition disposed of. *******