JUDGMENT 1. The sole petitioner seeks for quashment of C.C.No.254 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally. The petitioner alleged that the 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, laid the complaint, which was taken on file as C.C.No.254 of 2014 without recording the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Magistrate took the sworn affidavit of the 2nd respondent, treated the same as sworn statement of the 2nd respondent and took the case on file. He submitted that non-recording the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent vitiates the trial. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 200 Cr.P.C and the proviso thereto. The same is quoted for convenience. “200. Examination of complainant:--A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses,-- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 and examining the complainant and the witnesses, the later Magistrate need not reexamine them.” 3. Under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate shall have to examine the complainant on oath before taking cognizance of the case. Proviso however creates exceptions in the case the complainant is a public servant or the court or in the event the case was made over to the Magistrate under Section 192 Cr.P.C by another Magistrate. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that recording of the sworn statement by the learned Magistrate is imperative and accepting the sworn affidavit of the de facto complainant instead of the sworn statement vitiates further proceedings. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that recording of the sworn statement by the learned Magistrate is imperative and accepting the sworn affidavit of the de facto complainant instead of the sworn statement vitiates further proceedings. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C., which contemplates that a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or a Judicial Magistrate of the second class may take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such an offence. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C empowers a Magistrate to order investigation of a cognizable case when he is otherwise empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C to take cognizance of an offence. A conjoint reading of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C dealing with the definition of “complaint” together with Sections 190(1)(a), 156(3) and 200 Cr.P.C leads to an inescapable conclusion that a Magistrate shall record the statement of a complainant on oath before taking cognizance of the same. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon MADHAO v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2013) 5 SCC 615 . In that case, it was observed that when a Magistrate was referring the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation, Court need not examine the complainant on oath as required under Section 200 Cr.P.C and that in other circumstances, recording of the statement of the complainant on oath is mandatory. In DELHI GOLF CLUB LTD. v. NDMC (2001) 2 SCC 633 relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court observed that the examination of the complainant on oath is mandatory under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 6. In the present case, admittedly the learned Trial Magistrate did not record the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent and other witnesses but has accepted the sworn affidavit of the 2nd respondent instead of the statement on oath. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the sworn affidavit cannot be substitute of sworn statement on oath recorded by the Magistrate. 7. Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC contemplates that recording of the chief-examination of a witness shall be on an affidavit. A similar provision is not provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC contemplates that recording of the chief-examination of a witness shall be on an affidavit. A similar provision is not provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC cannot be read into Section 200 Cr.P.C. For various reasons already set out, recording of the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses before taking cognizance of the case as envisaged by Section 200 Cr.P.C is mandatory. 8. I therefore consider that taking cognizance of the case by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law. However, it is not a ground to quash C.C.No.254 of 2014 at this stage. It would be appropriate to set aside the proceedings from the stage of Section 200 Cr.P.C and direct the Magistrate to follow the procedure contemplated by Section 200 Cr.P.C and proceed with the case in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of setting aside the order of the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally in taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate shall record the sworn statements of the 2nd respondent and other witnesses as contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C and shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.