JUDGMENT : 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashment of the judgment/order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur in file No.44/Revision titled Rattan Lal Vs Ashwani Kumar and others, whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment/order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned District Judicial Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur, has been dismissed. Petitioner also seeks quashment of the judgment/order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned District Judicial Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur, in file No. 67/complaint titled Rattan Lal Vs Ashwani Kumar and others whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 323, 324, 341, 325, 332, 504, 506 and 458 Ranbir Penal code has been dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 09.04.2014, the petitioner along with his son were taking dinner when at about 9.00 PM, the respondents came in 4-5 vehicles including one Bolero and started shouting and abusing him and his family members. The respondent No.2 started pelting stones on the petitioner and his family members; one of the stones hit the petitioner on his forehead and he suffered injuries. The petitioner shouted and his wife ran towards the house of brother of the petitioner, namely Sh. Bishan Dass to call him. It is stated that the petitioner and his son were beaten by the respondents with fist and kicks. The petitioner became unconscious. One person namely, Sh. Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Parshotam R/o Sunderbani, who is relative of the petitioner had come to his house who had also seen the occurrence. Sh. Veer Chand S/o Sh. Ramu who is next door neighbor of the petitioner had also come on spot and has also seen the occurrence. The brother of the petitioner Sh. Bishan Dass went in his Car to Police Post Khoon and 4 police officials including one Sub Inspector came on spot. Thereafter the police directed the petitioner, his son Sh.Ashok Kumar and brother Sh. Bishan Dass to accompany so that the petitioner could be medically examined who had sustained injuries and for providing the treatment to him. It is further stated that after medical examination of the petitioner, the police took him, his son Sh. Ashok Kumar and his brother Sh. Bishan Dass in custody. Bishan Dass to accompany so that the petitioner could be medically examined who had sustained injuries and for providing the treatment to him. It is further stated that after medical examination of the petitioner, the police took him, his son Sh. Ashok Kumar and his brother Sh. Bishan Dass in custody. It is submitted that neither report in the Daily Diary (Rozmancha) was registered in the Police Post Khoon nor any FIR was registered by the Police Station, Majalta against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that at the time of occurrence respondent No. 2 Sh. Abey Kumar was the Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa Amala and respondent No. 5- Manohar was the Judicial member of the said Panchayat. It is stated that instead of registering the case against them, the petitioner, his son and brother were detained in a false and frivolous case. On 15.04.2014, they were released on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur. After releasing on bail, the petitioner requested the police to lodge the FIR against the respondents, but they declined to do so. He, therefore, filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Udhampur which was forwarded to District Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur who directed the SHO Police Station Majalta to investigate the matter. But police neither lodged the FIR nor the investigation was conducted by the police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in the above said circumstances the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 202 Cr.P.C against the respondents for committing the offences under Sections 323/324/341/325/332/504/506458 Ranbir Penal code in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur which was transferred to the learned District Judicial Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur for disposal. The learned District Judicial Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur took the cognizance of the case and initiated the proceedings under Section 202 Cr.P.C and directed the Police Station Majalta to investigate matter and submit the report. The Police Station Majalta, submitted the report in which the police stated that an FIR No.23/2014 was registered against the petitioner, his son and his brother under Section 307/341/34 Ranbir Penal code. It is contended that the complaint filed by the petitioner was counter blast. The Police Station Majalta, submitted the report in which the police stated that an FIR No.23/2014 was registered against the petitioner, his son and his brother under Section 307/341/34 Ranbir Penal code. It is contended that the complaint filed by the petitioner was counter blast. The Police Station, Majalta has further stated that the petitioner was habitual offender and he was involved in FIR No. 07/1986 registered by the Police Station, Ramnagar, in which petitioner stands acquitted. It is submitted that same was registered by Police Station, Ramnagar and Police Station, Majalta has no record with it. As the said information has been given by the opposite party. Without having the full information regarding the said case, the SHO Police Station, Majalta has made mention of the said case in order to mislead the Court. The full facts were not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court, which shows that the police has acted in partisan manner. It is further submitted that the witnesses who have been examined by the police were in fact either some of the respondents or their relatives or their supporters. Only the statement of the petitioner was recorded. The statement of son of the petitioner Sh. Ashok Kumar, his brother Sh. Bishan Dass and other family members have not been recorded by the police. Even the statement of the witnesses cited i.e., Sh. Mukesh Kumar and Sh. Veer Chand have not been recorded. The police again had not conducted the enquiry in accordance with law. 5. It is stated that that after receiving the report from the Police Station, the learned District Mobile Magistrate, Udhamupr vide order dated 18.12.2015 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the same has been filed to harass the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition against the judgment/order dated 18.12.2015 before the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur. The said revision petition has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2017. It is submitted that the brother of the petitioner Sh. Bishan Dass is owner in possession of landed property in village Nakki Mohra Alpur. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and one Sh. Roshan Din etc. without his consent used the JCB machine for constructing the road. The land was neither acquired nor there was any approval for the construction of the said road on his land from any department. Bishan Dass is owner in possession of landed property in village Nakki Mohra Alpur. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and one Sh. Roshan Din etc. without his consent used the JCB machine for constructing the road. The land was neither acquired nor there was any approval for the construction of the said road on his land from any department. The petitioner and his brother Bishan Dass resisted their unlawful action. A civil suit has also been filed which is pending in the court of learned Munsiff Majalta and interim order has also been passed. It is further submitted that at the instance of respondents, an FIR has been gotten registered by the relatives of Sh. Roshan Din, namely, Sh. Shatti in the Police Station Saddar, Thanna Hoshiarpur Punjab against the petitioner and his brother Sh. Bishan Dass. The said matter was investigated and the police have concluded that the said FIR was based on incorrect facts. 6. Being aggrieved of the judgment/order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial District Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur and judgment/order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur, petitioner challenge the same on the following grounds:- (a) That the judgments and orders impugned are contrary to the facts of the case and law on the point. The same deserve to be quashed. (b) That the orders impugned have been passed by the District Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur on surmises and conjunctures. The same, therefore, are not sustainable and deserve to be quashed. (c) That the learned District Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur has dismissed the complaint not on the ground that no offence was made out but on the ground that the complaint was based on false and incorrect facts without conducting the trial. Such a course is not permissible. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur has also not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the case. Both the orders impugned, therefore, deserve to be quashed on this ground as well. (d) That the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint on the basis of report submitted by the Police Station, Majalta. The police has examined the witnesses some of whom are either the respondents or their relatives and supporters. On the other hand, the statement of petitioner was recorded. The statement of the son of the petitioner Sh. Ashok Kumar, his brother Sh. The police has examined the witnesses some of whom are either the respondents or their relatives and supporters. On the other hand, the statement of petitioner was recorded. The statement of the son of the petitioner Sh. Ashok Kumar, his brother Sh. Bishan Dass and other family members have not been recorded by the police. Even the statement of witnesses cited in the complaint by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Mukesh Kumar and Sh. Veer Chand have not been recorded. Thus, the police has not conducted the enquiry in impartial manner. This aspect of the case has not been considered and appreciated by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur. The judgment and orders impugned, therefore, are liable to be quashed. (e) That the police has not investigated/made enquiry in an impartial manner. The said enquiry was influenced by the respondents particularly the abovementioned respondents who are influential persons. (f) That the courts below have recorded a finding that Sh. Abey Kumar was examined by the doctor at 9.45 PM, Sh. Raman Kumar at 11.15 PM, Sh.Janak Singh at 11.49 PM. The courts below, therefore, have further recorded a finding that their presence at 9.00 PM on 9-4-2014 in the house of the petitioners was not possible. The aforesaid finding again is based on assumption and presumption. In the facts and circumstances of the case, such findings could not have been recorded without conducting the trial. The orders impugned, therefore, are liable to be quashed on this ground also. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1) 2012(10) SCC 517 , Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and anr. vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and ors.; (2) 1997 AIR (SC) 987, Krishnan and anr. Vs. Krishnaveni and anr.; (3) 1963 AIR (SC) 1430, Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prakash Chandra Bose and anr.; (4) 1971 AIR (SC) 1389, Balraj Khanna and ors. vs. Moti Ram. Reliance is also placed on judgment of Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.1609 of 1965, titled Jumrati Main vs. Bisheshwar Prasad Vishwakarma and ors decided on 28.11.1966. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon 2009 (3) JKJ 106 , Om Parkash and Anr. vs. Moti Ram. Reliance is also placed on judgment of Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.1609 of 1965, titled Jumrati Main vs. Bisheshwar Prasad Vishwakarma and ors decided on 28.11.1966. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon 2009 (3) JKJ 106 , Om Parkash and Anr. vs. Lal Din Khatana and ors, wherein it is held that High Court while exercising power under section 561-A Cr.PC does not function as Revisional court. 9. From the perusal of document annexed with the petition, it is evident that petitioner moved a written complaint before CJM Udhampur, which was transferred to JMIC, who directed the police Majalta to conduct investigation under section 202 Cr.PC. The complaint filed by the petitioner-Rattan Lal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhamupur reads as under:- “2. That the complainant and his son Ashok Kumar on 09.04.2014 were present in their house at Nakki Balpur, Tehsil Majalia and were taking dinner when the accused persons at about 9PM came in 4/5 vehicles including one Bolero bearing Regd. No. not known colour black one Scooty no. not known, colour white, 2 maruti cars bearing no. JK0-5000; JK02AN-0898 and one another vehicle and with criminal intention entered inside the house of the complainant and started shouting and abusing the complainant and his family members in a filthy language. The accused Abey Kumar immediately started pelting stones on the complainant and his family members, and one of the stones hit the complainant on hisforehead and the applicant suffered injuries, the complainant shouted and wife of the applicant immediately ran towards the house of the applicant’s brother, namely, Bishan Dass to call him, the brother of the complainant brought the police on spot and in the meanwhile complainant and his son were beaten up by the accused persons with fists and Kicks and the complainant became unconscious. One namely, Makesh Kumar son of Parshotam R/O Sunderbani who is a relative of the applicant had come in the house of the complainant, another person Veer Chand son of Ramu who is a immediate neighbor of the complainant also came on spot and the whole of the episode took place in their presence. 3. One namely, Makesh Kumar son of Parshotam R/O Sunderbani who is a relative of the applicant had come in the house of the complainant, another person Veer Chand son of Ramu who is a immediate neighbor of the complainant also came on spot and the whole of the episode took place in their presence. 3. That thereafter the police took the complainant and his son Ashok Kumar and his brother Bishan Dass with them on the pretext that the complainant is to be examined by the doctor but instead of providing treatment to the complainant, the complainant, his brother and his son were detained in the police station without disclosing any offence alleged to be committed by the complainant and others. 4. That the applicant, his son, his brother, were detained without any sufficient reason till 15-4. 2014, this Hon’ble court granted the bail and in the evening the complainant were released. The applicant was got examined by the doctors who gave the treatment to the complainants. 5. That the applicant is apprehending great threat to himself, his family members and his property at the hands of the accused persons who are influential and have every say in the police. 6. That the complainant requested the police to lodge an FIR against the accused persons for the offence u/s 325, 341, 452 Ranbir Penal code but the police Majalta declines to do the same and as such the complainant is compelled to file the present complaint. 7. That on 16-4-2014, when the complainant were released from custody, the complainant requested the police to lodge the FIR against the accused persons but the police declined to do so and the applicant filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr P.C. before this Hon’ble court for lodging the FIR and this Hon’ble Court for warded the application to DMM Udhampur and the DMM court ordered the SHO P/S Majalta to investigate the matter but sill today neither the statement of the complainant has been recorded nor any action has been taken against the accused persons and as such the complainant has no other option but to file the present complaint.” 10. Police after conducting the investigation, furnished report to JMIC stating that Complainant is habitual offender involved in multiple FIRs and remained lodged in Jail at Udhampur in offence u/s 302 Ranbir Penal code. Police after conducting the investigation, furnished report to JMIC stating that Complainant is habitual offender involved in multiple FIRs and remained lodged in Jail at Udhampur in offence u/s 302 Ranbir Penal code. The JMIC after going through report and inviting protest petition from complainant/petitioner, dismissed the complaint on 18.12.2015. 11. Operative part of the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial District Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur reads as under:- “I have meticulously gone through the complaint and investigation report along with other documents on the file. I have also gone through Judicial Pronouncements above stated. It is admitted position of Law that Magistrate has ample powers to go ahead with the case even if the report of the I/O to whom matter has been sent for investigation comes against the accused person, but of course that powers has to be exercised only when the protest petition filed by the complainant suffice the requirement of complaint U/S 200 Cr.P.C. From the perusal of the protest petition filed by the applicant no good ground laid much less the requirement of complaint are complied with and by simply writing the protest application do not infer any right of the complainant/applicant to go ahead with the matter. I have taken the support from the judgment cited by the L/C titled B.Chandrika V/S Santosh& anr. (Supra) which is implicit and self-explanatory. To my mind it appears that the complainant has just filed the complaint to harass the accused persons as the parties are already in litigation as reported by the Investigating Officer. The complaint thus deserves no merit and is accordingly dismissed. However the cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on the complainant to file the vexatious complaint against the accused persons and dragged them in litigation. The cost so imposed shall be paid to the accused persons. Complaint is accordingly disposed of and shall form part of the record.” 12. Petitioner filed revision petition against the order of JMIC before Sessions Judge, Udhampur, who too dismissed the same on 31.01.2017. Operative part of the judgment/order dated 30.1.2017, reads as under:- “There is no denying the fact that a party/complainant aggrieved of police report has a right under law to file a protest petition against the said report but it is not the mandate of 1aw that whenever a protest petition is filed the same must be treated as a complaint. Operative part of the judgment/order dated 30.1.2017, reads as under:- “There is no denying the fact that a party/complainant aggrieved of police report has a right under law to file a protest petition against the said report but it is not the mandate of 1aw that whenever a protest petition is filed the same must be treated as a complaint. The Hon’ble High Court of J&K in a case titled Noor-Ud-Din Vs. State, reported in (1980) JKLR 177, (1980) Sri.L.J 359 while dealing with similar contention in para 8 have observed as under:- “(8) Thus, I cannot agree with Mr. Goni that whenever a protest petition is filed, the same must be treated as a complaint. It is open to the court to treat such a petition as a complaint, if the court is satisfied on the material contained in the petition that cognizance of an offence can be taken on the basis thereof. If the court finds no reason to disagree with the police report after perusing the police diaries and the other relevant material, it can proceed to agree with the police report and reject the protest petition and close the case.” The protest petition filed by the complainant before the court below in my opinion also does not disclose the commission of any offence norit satisfies the requirements of law as observed by the trial court. After going through the police report and the connected evidence collected by the investigating agency and the contents of the protest petition, I find no reason to disagree with the findings recorded bythe court below. Therefore, this revision-petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The trial court file along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the said court forthwith. The file of this court be consigned to records.” 13. Criminal complaint has been defined in section 4 (e) of Cr.PC; it reads as under:- “Complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence but it does not include the report of a police officer.” 14. Section 190 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “190. Section 190 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.-(1) Except as hereinafter provided any chief judicial magistrate and any other judicial Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer. (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The High Court may empower any judicial Magistrate to take cognizance under sub-section (1) clause (a) or clause (b) of offences for which he may try to commit for trial. (3) The High court may empowers any Judicial Magistrate of First class or second class to take cognizance under sub section (c) of offences for which he may try to or commit for trial. 15. As is seen from above, Section 190 Cr.P.C. lays down as to how cognizance of offences can be taken by Magistrates. It is by taking cognizance of an offence that the court machinery is set in motion in respect of criminal cases. Cognizance of an offence can be taken in one of the three ways mentioned in Section 190 Cr.P.C. 16. Section 200 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “200. Examination of complainant.-A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath 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 as follow - (a) When the complaint is made in writing, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require a magistrate to examine the complainant before transferring the case under section 192. (b) When the complaint is made in writing ,nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require the examination of a complainant in any case ,in which the complaint has been made by a court or by a public savant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. (c) When the case has been transferred under section 192 and the magistrate so transferring it has already examined the complainant, the magistrate to whom it is so transferred shall not be bound to re-examine the complainant.” 17. (c) When the case has been transferred under section 192 and the magistrate so transferring it has already examined the complainant, the magistrate to whom it is so transferred shall not be bound to re-examine the complainant.” 17. Now, if the Magistrate is taking cognizance on the basis of section 190 Cr.PC as mentioned above, i.e., on the basis of a complaint (which is generally, but not always, a private complaint), then he has to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of Sections 200 to 203 Cr.P.C., and if needed, also under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 18. On the other hand, if the cognizance is being taken on the basis of the police report (filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.), the magistrate may directly proceed to take action under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. 19. Thus, in the overall scheme of things under Cr.P.C., in the case of the (private) complaint, while the power to take cognizance lies under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., the power to examine the complainant on oath (and, other witnesses, if any) for the purposes of verification of the complaint is laid down in Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, for the purposes of a complaint case, both these sections are interlinked. They provide for different steps or stages in a complaint case. Accordingly, in so far as a complaint case is concerned, both Section 190 as well as Section 200 of Cr.P.C are relevant. Therefore, if it is a complaint disclosing commission of an offence, it does not matter much whether you refer to it as being one under Section 190 Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, in respect of a complaint case, both the sections refer to the same “complaint” which is defined under Section 4 (e) of Cr.P.C. 20. Here magistrate has also option to send the complaint to police for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C which discloses cognizable offence; this is called pre cognizance stage. 21. Section 200 is relevant only for a “complaint”, the cognizance of which is taken under clause (a) of Section 190(1). Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not relevant when the cognizance is being taken under clause (b) of Section 190(1) on the basis of a “police report” which is filed by police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. after completion of the investigation. 22. Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not relevant when the cognizance is being taken under clause (b) of Section 190(1) on the basis of a “police report” which is filed by police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. after completion of the investigation. 22. Now coming to present case, as is evident from record, magistrate has adopted the provisions of section 200 Cr.P.C onwards. He after taking cognizance of alleged offence sent the complaint filed by petitioner to police for investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C. 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, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made 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. Provided that save -where the complaint has not been made by a Court, No such direction shall be made unless the complainant has been examined on oath under the provision of section 200. (2) If any inquiry or investigation under this section is made by a person not being a magistrate or police officer, such person shall exercise all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer- in- charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant. (3) Any Magistrate inquiring into a case under this section may if he thinks fit take evidence of witnesses on oath.” 23. Purpose of investigation or inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C, to find out whether there is prima facie case in issuing process against the person accused of the offence in the complaint and secondly, to prevent the issue of process in the complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person, as held in M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., reported in 1997 (4) Crimes (SC) 212 on 4 November, 1997, wherein it is held as under:- “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., reported in 1997 (4) Crimes (SC) 212 on 4 November, 1997, wherein it is held as under:- “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 24. It is thus prime duty of magistrate to evaluate truthfulness or falsehood of allegations leveled in complaint, before issuing process against the accused; that is why section 202 of Cr.P.C has been made in Cr.P.C. 25. In present case as already held Magistrate directed police to conduct investigation in order to evaluate the truthfulness of allegation leveled against alleged accused in terms of section 202 Cr.P.C. 26. The report of investigation submitted by SHO concerned clearly depicts that complainant is habitual offender involved in multiple FIRs and remained lodged in Jail at Udhampur in offence u/s 302 of Ranbir Penal code. It has been held by investigating officer that complainant is also involved in FIR 23/2014 u/s 307/34 Ranbir Penal code and FIR No.28/2014 U/S 8/18 of NDPS Act. During investigation I/O has recorded the statements of witnesses of locality. 27. It has been held by investigating officer that complainant is also involved in FIR 23/2014 u/s 307/34 Ranbir Penal code and FIR No.28/2014 U/S 8/18 of NDPS Act. During investigation I/O has recorded the statements of witnesses of locality. 27. The JMIC after going through report and inviting protest petition from complainant/petitioner dismissed the complaint on 18.12.2015 under section 203 Cr.P.C, which empowers the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint after receiving investigation report under section 202 Cr.P.C, when he finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. 28. Section 203 Cr.P.C reads as under:- “Dismissal of complaint-The magistrate before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred ,may dismiss the complaint ,if after considering the statement on oath (if any) of complainant and the witnesses and result of the investigation or inquiry (if any) under section 202 ,there is in his judgment no sufficient grounds for proceeding . In such case he shall briefly record his treason for so doing.” 29. Hence, on receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate by following the procedure prescribed under Section 200 may issue process against the accused or dismiss the complaint. Section 203 specifically provides that after considering the statement on oath, if any, of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, under Section 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint. For dismissal of complaint, he is required to briefly record his reasons for so doing. In other cases, he has to issue process i.e. either summons or warrants as the case may be as provided under Section. 30. From perusal of order of magistrate, it is apparent that he has given reasons and cited law in concluding that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. 31. Similarly the order of Sessions Judge is also correct and legal thereby dismissing the revision of petitioner against the order of JMIC. 32. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 , the Supreme Court held that:- “Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. 32. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 , the Supreme Court held that:- “Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that “a complaint of facts which constitute such offence”. Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. The complaint is simply to be rejected.” “The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one’s dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” 33. Further, from bare perusal of contents of memo of petition, it is evident that petitioner has raised same pleas which he raised before Sessions Court. In this way, petition in hand is virtually a second revision against order of Magistrate, which is not permissible under law. It is not case of petitioner that courts below have exceeded the jurisdiction or there was express bar in dismissing his complaint or revision petition. 34. Law cited by counsel for petitioner is not applicable in present set of case. In Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prakash Chandra Bose and anr.; Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and anr. vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and ors.; and Jumrati Main vs. Bisheshwar Prasad Vishwakarma and ors. (supra), it has been held that accused cannot be heard during inquiry/investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C. In 1997 AIR (SC) 987, Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni and anr, it has been held that High Court has power under section 482 Cr.PC to entertain the petition against the order of Sessions Judge dismissing the Revision; in 1971 AIR (SC) 1389, Balraj Khanna and ors. vs. Moti Ram, it has been held that when magistrate finds that there is prima facie case, he must commit the accused to trial; there is no dispute with regard to this law. 35. In view of above discussion and law on the subject, this petition is dismissed.