1. Criminal proceedings commenced on the basis of a complaint titled Mahant Jai Ram Dass v. Purshotam Lal Khindri & ors, are claimed to amount to abuse of the process, therefore, sought to be quashed. Despite notice respondent has not chosen to appear. 2. Perusal of the proceedings conducted by the Magistrate presents a disturbing position, in a slipshod manner orders have been passed. The procedure prescribed has been observed in breach. 3. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) has filed a written complaint against the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the accused) alleging therein that the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 420,506,341 and 511 RPC. After recording statement of the complainant and one witness in support thereof, learned Magistrate has postponed the issue of process and has directed the SHO concerned to hold the enquiry with regard to the accusations and also for the identification of the accomplices of the accused. Further SHO has been directed to make endeavour to seize the weapons used for rioting and also to provide necessary security to the complainant and to report within one month. The said enquiry report was not received but still the Magistrate has proceeded with the proceedings erroneously. 4. Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to the Code) deals with the subject i.e. "complaints to Magistrates". Section 200 of the Code provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witness present, if any upon oath and to reduce into writing the substance of the examination. 5. Section 202 of the Code provides that if the Magistrate thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process, either inquire into the case himself, or, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him or by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. When the Magistrate postpones the issue of process and directs the enquiry, on receipt of enquiry report, he has to consider the statement of the complainant, the witness and the result of the enquiry and if finds no sufficient ground for proceeding, shall after recording brief reasons in support thereof dismiss the complaint. Same is the mandate of Section 203 of the Code. Same is the mandate of Section 203 of the Code. 6. In case Magistrate finds sufficient grounds for proceeding, then he shall have to proceed in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Code. Section 204 of the Code of the Chapter provides that on finding sufficient grounds for proceeding, the Magistrate has to issue summon for attendance or the warrant in accordance with fourth column of the Second Schedule of the Code or he may have resort to the provisions of Section 90 of the Code which provides for issuance of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons. 7. The position of aforesaid provisions is noticed as the same has become imperative in view of non-observance of the said provisions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. Either the Magistrate has not bothered to go through these provisions or has acted in haste. The interim orders recorded by the Magistrate would show as to how the proceedings have been conducted erroneously. 8. The complaint has been presented on 14.2.2011, statement of the complainant in support thereof has been recorded on the same date i.e. 14.2.2011 but the statement of the witness has been recorded on 15.2.2011. On 14.2.2011 Magistrate, on the front page of the complaint, has recorded as under: "Criminal clerk to report. Sd/14.2." Nothing is said about the recording of the statement of the complainant on 14.2.2011 nor any other order is recorded, then how on 15.2.2011 file had come up for consideration and statement of the witness recorded, is a question which is not answered by the records. Without recording any order on 14.2.2011, on 15.2.2011 Magistrate has recorded the order. How the procedure has been observed in breach and how matter has been dealt with arbitrarily, it shall be quite relevant to reproduce the orders as recorded by learned Magistrate from 15.2.2011 to 20th of June, 2011: "In the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar. Present: Y. P. Bourney, K.C.S Mahant Jai Ram Dass V/S Purshottam Lal Khimndri and others ORDER Preliminary statement of the complainant and one witness namely Parmeswar Garish Chander have been recorded and made part of the file. From the perusal of the complaint and the preliminary statement of the complainant and his witness it is revealed that complainant was abducted by the accused and their accomplices who were armed with deadly weapons. From the perusal of the complaint and the preliminary statement of the complainant and his witness it is revealed that complainant was abducted by the accused and their accomplices who were armed with deadly weapons. It is further revealed that accused and their accomplices continue to extend threats to the complainant and in these circumstances it is imperative to identify these persons also for meeting the ends of justice. The issuance of process is therefore deferred and matter is referred to SHO Police Station concerned for holding the enquiry with regard to the accusations and also for the identification of the accomplices of the accused. SHO concerned shall also make endeavour to seize the weapons used for rioting and also to provide necessary security to the complainant. SHO shall complete the enquiry within period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Put up for further proceedings on 25.3.2011. Sd/ Magistrate. Announced 15/2/2011 25.3.2011(Order recorded in Urdu, English version is as under): Complainant along with counsel present. Notice to accused. Put up on 25.4.2011. Sd/ Magistrate. 25.4.2011(Order recorded in Urdu, English version is as under): Complainant along with counsel present. Accused No.3 with counsel, accused No.2 absent. Accused No.1 with counsel. Counsel for accused No.2 states that he will produce accused No.2 on next date of hearing. File to come up for further proceedings on 27.5.2011. Further added that at this stage copy of the complaint is supplied to the counsel for the accused in the open court, hence file to come up on 27.5.2011. Sd/ Magistrate. 27.5.2011: Complainant in person. Accused 1&3 along with their LC. They are directed to furnish bail bonds to the tune of Rs.20,0'00 and personal bonds in the like amount failing which they be sent to Judl. Lock up. Accused 2 is yet to be served. Let fresh summons be issued to him. Put up on 20.6.2011. Sd/ Magistrate. 20.6.2011: Complainant in person. Accused persons along with their LC. LC for accused No.2 shall furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/for A-2 and personal bond in the like amount failing which he shall be kept in Judl. Lock up. In the instant complaint issuance of process has been deferred and SHO P/S concerned has been directed to hold an enquiry U/S 202 Cr. P.C, the result of which has not been conveyed so far. Lock up. In the instant complaint issuance of process has been deferred and SHO P/S concerned has been directed to hold an enquiry U/S 202 Cr. P.C, the result of which has not been conveyed so far. SHO concerned shall expedite the process and file his report within two weeks. Let copy of this order be forwarded to him immediately for compliance. Put up on 14.7.2011. Sd/ Magistrate. 9. Order recorded on 15.2.2011 clearly indicates that the Magistrate had postponed the issue of process and directed SHO Police Station concerned to hold the enquiry with regard to the accusations which means after recording statement of complainant and the witness, Magistrate was not satisfied, therefore, had postponed the issue of process which is permissible under Section 202 of the Code. 10. The question whether the Magistrate was competent, while postponing the issue of process, to direct the SHO to make endeavour to seize weapons and to provide security to the complainant, has to be answered in negative because when the enquiry was directed to be conducted by the SHO, the said police officer had to conduct the enquiry and in the process could exercise the powers available under Chapter XIV of the Code. When the Magistrate had issued direction for enquiry with regard to accusations and for identification of the accomplices of the accused, that would show that the police officer had to ascertain truth or falsehood of the complaint as well. When it was so, Magistrate should not have issued direction for seizure of the weapon and for providing security to the complainant. This is one part of the proceedings. 11. In terms of the order dated 15.2.2011, SHO had to submit the report within one month, so matter was deferred for 25.3.2011. On 25.3.2011 in a most casual manner order has been recorded i.e. "complainant with counsel present, notice to accused". Nothing has been said about the enquiry which was directed to be conducted nor was the report submitted by the SHO. When the enquiry is directed under Section 202 of the Code so as to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, then receipt of the enquiry report is a precondition for proceeding under Section 203 or 204 of the Code. How the Magistrate has directed issue of notice against the accused when enquiry report was not received, is quite astonishing. 12. How the Magistrate has directed issue of notice against the accused when enquiry report was not received, is quite astonishing. 12. Again on" 25.4.2011, Magistrate has recorded that the accused No.1 and 3 are present, copy of the complaint is furnished to the counsel for the accused. Then on 27th of May, 2011 he has recorded that the accused No.1 and 3 are directed to furnish bail bonds. Then on 20th of June, 2011 he has recorded that the accused are present, accused No.2 shall furnish bail bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000/and the personal bond of like amount failing which he shall be kept in judicial lock up but then in the same order has recorded as under:- "In the complaint process has been deferred and the SHO concerned has been directed to hold the enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C, result of which has not been conveyed", so has been directed to expedite the process to file the report." 13. Unexpected from the Judicial Officer of the rank of Chief Judicial Magistrate who disturbingly has acted like a novice. While conducting proceedings on the complaint, procedure, as prescribed under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Code has been observed in breach. Perfunctorily and erroneously orders, as reproduced hereinabove, have been recorded. 14. The orders recorded not only amount to abuse of process of the Court but also ends of justice are to get defeated. Power exercisable under Section 561-A of the Code is to be exercised rarely so as to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In case powers in the said background, in the instant case, are not exercised, not only process of the Court will be further abused but even ends of justice are to get defeated. The orders as recorded by the Magistrate are liable to be quashed, as such, quashed. Case remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for proceeding in the complaint afresh and in the process observance of the procedure as prescribed under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Code shall be adhered to. 15. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at the first instance, shall issue notice to the complainant and it is only after his appearance proceedings in the complaint, as shall be permissible, shall be carried forward. While doing so observations as made above shall be born in mind. 15. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at the first instance, shall issue notice to the complainant and it is only after his appearance proceedings in the complaint, as shall be permissible, shall be carried forward. While doing so observations as made above shall be born in mind. 16. Copy of the order be send to the Judicial Officer who has passed the orders, reproduced above, for information. 17. Copy of the order along with record be send to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar.