JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 20.11.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, whereby process has been issued against the petitioners in a complaint filed by the respondent against them alleging commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 RPC. 2. A perusal of the trial court record shows that on 20.05.2017, a complaint was presented before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (Mr. Sunit Gupta) and on the said date preliminary statements of the complainant and her one witness were recorded. The matter was adjourned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate from time to time and ultimately, on 31.08.2017, the successor-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (Mr. Ashwani Sharma) directed inquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Cr. P.C. and postponed issuance of the process. After report of inquiry was received from SHO, Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Mr. Ashwani Sharma) passed another order on 20.11.2017, wherein it was recorded that prima facie offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of RPC are made out against the petitioners and accordingly, the process was issued against them. 3. The main ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners for impugning order dated 20.11.2017 is that the Magistrate issuing the process against the accused in terms of Section 204 of J&K Cr. P.C. which is applicable to the instant case, should be the same Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of the offences in terms of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that in the instant case, two different Magistrates have undertaken the aforesaid steps in the complaint, as such, the impugned order, whereby the process has been issued against the accused, is unsustainable in law. 4. Nobody has been appearing in this petition on behalf of the respondent for a quite some time. Therefore, the matter has been taken up for final consideration in absence of the respondent. 5. Heard and considered. 6. As already noted, the primary ground for impugning order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu is that it has been passed by a Magistrate, who has not taken cognizance of the offences, therefore, the same is unsustainable in law. 5. Heard and considered. 6. As already noted, the primary ground for impugning order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu is that it has been passed by a Magistrate, who has not taken cognizance of the offences, therefore, the same is unsustainable in law. In order to decide the merits of the aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be apt to refer to the provisions contained in Sections 200, 202 and 204, J&K Cr. P.C. which read 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 the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate : Provided as follows— (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 pubic servant 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 already examined the complainant, the Magistrate to whom it is so transferred shall not be bound to re-examine the complainant. 202. 202. Postponement for 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 transferred to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and 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 : [Provided that, save where the complaint has been made by a Court, no such direction shall be made unless the complainant has been examined on oath under the provisions of section 200]. (2) If any inquiry or investigation under this section is made by a person not being a Magistrate or a police officer, such person shall exercise all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer-in-charge of a police station, except that he shall not have 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]. 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 one in which, according to the forth column of the Second Schedule, a summons should issue in the first instance, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused. If the case appears to be one in which, according to that column, a warrant should issue in the first instance, 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 not jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. 2 (I-a) No summon or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (I-b) 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]. 2 (I-a) No summon or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (I-b) 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]. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 90. (3) 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. 7. From a perusal of the afore-quoted provisions, it is clear that once a complaint is filed before a Magistrate, he has to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, on oath and such examination has to be reduced into writing. Once this exercise is undertaken by the Magistrate, it amounts to taking cognizance of the offence. Clause (c) of proviso to section 200 provides that if a complaint is transferred to a Magistrate under Section 192 of the Cr.P.C and the transferee Magistrate has already examined the complainant, the transferee Magistrate is not bound to re-examine the complainant. 8. Section 202 of the Cr. P.C. gives an option to the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process against the accused and instead inquire the case himself or direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any subordinate Magistrate or by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, with a view to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint. 9. Section 204 provides that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, a summon has to be issued in the first instance for attendance of the accused. 9. Section 204 provides that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, a summon has to be issued in the first instance for attendance of the accused. The words used in Section 204 are “a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence” which conveys that only the Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of an offence, is competent to issue process against the accused under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid words used in Section 204 Cr.P.C are very significant in nature and the same convey that the intention of the legislature was that the Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of an offence in terms of Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. is alone competent to issue the process, if it appears to him that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Section 204 Cr. P.C. does not empower the successor Magistrate to issue process in a case where cognizance of offences has been taken by his predecessor. If that would have been intention of the legislature then there was no need to use the words “taking cognizance of an offence” in Section 204 of the Cr. P.C. 10. While interpreting a statutory provision, it has to be borne in mind that meaning must be given to every word. The rationale behind this is that the legislature does not use words and expressions without meaning. No clause, sentence or word can be assumed to be superfluous, void or insignificant. In view of this, the words “Magistrate taking cognizance of offence” used in Section 204 Cr. P.C. have to be given their plain meaning and the same has not be treated as superfluous or insignificant. When given their plain meaning, the aforesaid words clearly refer to the Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the offences in terms of Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. 11. The aforesaid issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Nath Mahato vs. T. Gangooly, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Purulia and others, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 470. While dealing with this issue, the Supreme Court has discussed the same in the following manner: “6. The question for consideration is whether Shri Sarkar could have issued process in the-present case. Shri Ganguly was the Magistrate who took cognizance. Shri Sarkar was not the Magistrate who took cognizance. While dealing with this issue, the Supreme Court has discussed the same in the following manner: “6. The question for consideration is whether Shri Sarkar could have issued process in the-present case. Shri Ganguly was the Magistrate who took cognizance. Shri Sarkar was not the Magistrate who took cognizance. Therefore, under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate who took cognizance of the case could issue process. 7. Sections 191 and 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplate transfer of cases by a Magistrate, who has taken cognizance, of an offence. Section 191 of the Code of Criminal procedure speaks of transfer of a case or commitment to the Court of sessions on the application of the accused. Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of transfer of a case by a Magistrate who has taken cognizance to any Magistrate subordinate to him for enquiry or trial. 8. In these cases where either the Magistrate has taken cognizance and is in seisin of the case or where a case is transferred by a Magistrate who has taken Cognizance to another Magistrate subordinate to him the complainant is required to be examined under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There are certain exceptions with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. The relevant section which confers power on the Magistrate to whom the case has been transferred to issue process is section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The language of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the Magistrate may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendances of the person complained against. Therefore the power of the Magistrate to issue process under section 202 of the Code, of Criminal Procedure is not limited by the terms of section, 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue process. 9. Therefore, the two courses are: first, under section 204 of. the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate taking cognizance to issue process or secondly under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a Magistrate to whom a case has, been transferred to issue process. 10. In the present case there was no order of transfer of the case, by Shri Ganguly to Shri Sarkar. The issue of process is a matter for judicial determination. 10. In the present case there was no order of transfer of the case, by Shri Ganguly to Shri Sarkar. The issue of process is a matter for judicial determination. Before issuing a process’ the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. That is why the issue of process is by the Magistrate who has taken cognizance or the Magistrate to whom the case has been transferred. The High Court therefore correctly quashed the issue of process.” 12. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court in the case of Chaman Lal Vs. State, 1983 (24) DLT 334 has held that it is only a Magistrate who takes cognizance of the complaint, who can issue the process to the accused but not a succeeding Magistrate, who has not himself taken the cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and/or his witnesses. 13. In the light of aforesaid law on the subject, it is clear that it is only the Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of the offences in terms of Section 200 of the Cr. P.C, who can issue process under Section 204 of the Cr. P.C. 14. In the instant case, examination of the complaint and his witness was conducted by Mr. Sunit Gupta, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, whereas the process has been issued against the petitioners herein by his successor, Mr. Ashwani Sharma. The successor Magistrate, Shri Ashwani Sharma has not examined the complainant and/ or his witness afresh before issuing process against the petitioners. Therefore, order impugned passed by the said Magistrate is not sustainable in law. 15. Accordingly, impugned order 20.11.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu who shall summon the respondent for recording her preliminary statement as well as the statement of her witness(s) afresh whereafter, the learned Magistrate shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law. 16. Disposed of. 17. The Registrar Judicial shall circulate soft copy of this judgment to all the Judicial Magistrates of UT of J&K and Ladakh.