ORDER 1. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Godda has set aside the Order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda in P.C.R. No. 176/2008 (T.R. No. 1371/2008) and observed in para-5 as follows:– "5. After going through the statements on S.A. of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution it appears that the materials in record suggests that an offence punishable under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. is made out. Hence, the impugned order in which the learned Magistrate has observed that primafacie case only for the offence punishable under Section 354, I.P.C. is made out, is indefensible in the facts and circumstances of' the case. Hence, the same is set aside. The learned Court below is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made by this Court. In the result, the revision is allowed." The petitioner has also challenged the legality of the order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate in said P.C.R. Case No. 176/2008 in pursuant to the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 because the learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind has followed the directions and issued process against the petitioner directing him to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. It is made clear that the petitioner has prayed to quash order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 and order dated 29.04.2009 passed in P.C.R. No. 176/2008. 2. The prosecution case as made out by the complainant in P.C.R. No. 176/2008 is that on 27.03.2008 the petitioner Naseem Ansari in a drunken state, committed house trespass and tried to outrage the modesty of complainant/opposite party No.2, Sahnaj Begam (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). In course of making such attempt, lace of lower garments of the complainant was pulled by the petitioner. In order to make her protest effective she also caught hold baithi (sharp cutting instrument used for cutting vegetables) but she sustained injury on her finger when the petitioner tried to snatch it. When the petitioner could not succeed, he snatched away golden chain and fled away from the place. In order to make her protest effective she also caught hold baithi (sharp cutting instrument used for cutting vegetables) but she sustained injury on her finger when the petitioner tried to snatch it. When the petitioner could not succeed, he snatched away golden chain and fled away from the place. The matter was reported by the complainant to her parent whereafter a complaint as mentioned above was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda who transferred the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who after holding inquiry under Section 202. Cr P.C., vide order dated 03.12.2008 directed to issue process against the petitioner to face trial under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The complainant, on being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed in P.C.R. Case No.176/2008, preferred Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 before the learned Sessions Judge and succeeded to get an observation that offence punishable under Sections 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 176/2008 stood set aside. The learned Magistrate in receipt of the Order dated 09.04.2009, passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 passed an order on 29.04.2099, which reads as follows:– "29.04.2009 the complainant is on attendance. Accused is absent. The Case is fixed for order in light of the observations and directions of Ld. District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision 3109 dated 09.04.2009. Ld. District and Sessions Judge has been pleased to observe that on the basis of material on record offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of Cr P.C. is made out as such the order of this Court to proceed further and issue process under Section 354 of I.P.C. stands set aside. This Court has been directed to pass appropriate order accordingly. Thus in light of the facts and circumstances available on record and also in view of the observations made by Ld. District and Sessions Judge there are sufficient material on record to proceed further and issue process against accused Naseem Ansari under Sections 376/511 of Cr P.C. Since the accused is absent, issue N.B.W. For his appearance on 30.05.09." 4. It is submitted that purpose of holding inquiry under Section 202. Cr. District and Sessions Judge there are sufficient material on record to proceed further and issue process against accused Naseem Ansari under Sections 376/511 of Cr P.C. Since the accused is absent, issue N.B.W. For his appearance on 30.05.09." 4. It is submitted that purpose of holding inquiry under Section 202. Cr. P.C. is restricted to the extent if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding the complaint shall be dismissed for which reasons in brief is required to be recorded or if in the opinion of Magistrate there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Court shall issue process. In the circumstances where the process has ordered to be issued against the accused to face trial under Section 204 Cr. P.C. the case will proceed further in accordance with law and in such situation the complainant is not at all aggrieved. It is also pointed out that the purpose of holding inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. comes to an end as soon as order under Section 203. Cr. P.C. or order under Section 204 Cr. P.C. is passed. If the complaint stands dismissed the complainant shall be at liberty to take recourse to revisional jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and in the same manner if the accused finds himself aggrieved with the order passed under Section 204 Cr. P.C. he shall be at liberty to file revision or quashing petition against issuance of process before the Appellate Court. 5. In a case where process against accused has been ordered under Section 204. Cr. P.C. any revision is preferred by the complainant before the Appellate Court and any observation if made by the Appellate Court on the basis of statement recorded during inquiry it would cause prejudice to the accused during trial. In the instant case too vide order dated 03.12.2008 the learned Magistrate has directed to issue process against the petitioner to face trial for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. But the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the Criminal Revision made specific observation that offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. In the instant case too vide order dated 03.12.2008 the learned Magistrate has directed to issue process against the petitioner to face trial for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. But the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the Criminal Revision made specific observation that offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Such observation would certainly cause prejudice to the accused during trial and presently it is reflected in the order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate in P.C.R. No. 176/2008 whereby the petitioner has been directed to face trial for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and. therefore. the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 and the order passed by learned Magistrate dated 29.04.2009 passed in P.C.R No.176/2008 are illegal highly erroneous and they are liable to be set aside. 6. The opposite parties have opposed the prayer. 7. I have gone through the complaint petition and the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Godda in P.C.R No.176/2008; order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009; and order dated 29.04.2009 passed in P.C.R. No.176/2008. I do not feel that the facts appearing in the complaint, the statements of complainant recorded on S.A. and the statement of witnesses are much relevant to decide the issue involved in this application and therefore no need to reproduce the same. 8. It is admitted that the complaint preferred before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was registered as P.C.R. No.176/2008 and the same was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate under Section 192(1), Cr. P.C. for holding inquiry. In receipt of the case record the learned Magistrate held inquiry under Section 202. Cr. P.C. and recorded the statement of witnesses produced by the complainant. After considering those statements and the contention made in the complaint, the petitioner was directed to be summoned vide order dated 03.12.2008 to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus the impugned order was passed under Section 204. Cr. P.C. and Section 204, Cr. P.C. speaks as follows:– "204. After considering those statements and the contention made in the complaint, the petitioner was directed to be summoned vide order dated 03.12.2008 to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus the impugned order was passed under Section 204. Cr. P.C. and Section 204, Cr. P.C. speaks as follows:– "204. Issue of process–(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be:– (a) A summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) A warrant-case, he may issue a warrant or if he thinks fit a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub–section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing every summons or warrant issued under sub–section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87." 9. The statements recorded on oath during inquiry are to be considered for the purpose of either to dismiss the complaint or to issue process against the accused in a complaint case. Section 204 Cr. P.C. indicates that if in the opinion of Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding he shall issue summon against the accused in a summon trial case and warrant in case of warrant trial. The Magistrate is empowered to consider the statement of complainant and witnesses whether such statement primafacie sufficient for proceeding further with the case and it is not expected or permitted to discuss such statement in details to decide whether a particular offence is made out or not. 10. The Magistrate is empowered to consider the statement of complainant and witnesses whether such statement primafacie sufficient for proceeding further with the case and it is not expected or permitted to discuss such statement in details to decide whether a particular offence is made out or not. 10. I do agree with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if any revision is preferred by the complainant against order passed under Section 204, Cr. P.C. for seeking direction that a particular offence is made out and if the learned Sessions Judge, while exercising revisional jurisdiction hold that a particular offence is made out on the basis of the statements recorded during inquiry, it would certainly cause prejudice to the accused during trial. The observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 is totally reflected in the order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate after receiving said order. Therefore, at the time of exercising revisional jurisdiction in such situation, the appellate Court should always refrain from giving such observations. 11. The submission of learned counsel is also correct to the extent that the order passed under Section 204, Cr. P.C. will not restrict the complainant or confine himself from adducing further evidence during trial. The complainant shall get all opportunity to adduce evidence during trial and if the evidence so adduced would constitute offences other than the offence for which the accused has been facing trial, he shall be at liberty to file petition for alteration amendment or addition in the charge as provided under Section 216, Cr. P.C. Even in a case of summons trial if it appears to the Magistrate that in the interest of justice the offence would be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases, such Magistrate may proceed to rehear the case in the manner provided under this Code for the trial of warrant cases and may recall any witness who may have been examined. 12. In a warrant trial case instituted on complaint the complainant is given opportunity to adduce evidence before the charge and the evidence so adduced shall form basis of framing of the charge against the accused. Again scope of amendment alteration or addition in charge as provided under Section 216 of Cr. P.C. remain present. 12. In a warrant trial case instituted on complaint the complainant is given opportunity to adduce evidence before the charge and the evidence so adduced shall form basis of framing of the charge against the accused. Again scope of amendment alteration or addition in charge as provided under Section 216 of Cr. P.C. remain present. In this context, I feel the provisions contained under Section 323, Cr. P.C. is also relevant, which reads is under:– "323. Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds case should be committed. If in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made." 13. Thus it is clear that the complainant, in order to satisfy himself, can avail all these opportunities during trial and such evidence can well be discussed by the trial Court at the time of pronouncement of the judgment. Besides the above, if the complainant feels himself aggrieved by any order passed during trial before pronouncement of the judgment by which amendment alteration or addition in the charge is refused, he can take recourse to revisional appellate jurisdiction and in that situation the appellate Court can consider those evidence for that purpose because the observations/findings shall be on the evidence adduced during trial and not on the statement recorded on oath during inquiry. 14. Now coming to the facts and circumstances appearing in the present case the complainant can avail opportunity to adduce evidence during trial and the evidence so adduced if found sufficient to constitute further evidence the charge could always be amended before pronouncement of judgment. 15. In view of the discussions made above. the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 and the order passed by learned Magistrate dated 29.04.2009 passed in P.C.R. No.176/2008 in consequent to the said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.03/2009 stands quashed and the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in P.C.R. No. 176/ 2008 (T.R. No. 1371/2008) shall prevail. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below within one month from the date of this order for further progress in the case. Order accordingly.