The order of a superior court to hold further enquiry into a complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has acquired a technical meaning. It simply means reconsideration; but what more step has to be taken thereafter depends on the circumstances of each case.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dated the 28th April 1966. By that order, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of a case under Sec. 436 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and transferred the case to a first case Munsif. Magistrate/C for the purpose of holding an enquiry under Chapter 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It appears that the opposite party lodged a first information report in respect of an occurrence of arson on the 28rd September 1964. The police investigated into the case and submitted a report to the effect that the allegations of the informant were maliciously false. Against the police report, a protest petition was filed by the complainant and, accordingly an enquiry was ordered to be held under Sec.202 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate named Mr. B. G. Bagchi. Mr. Bagchi also reported the case to be maliciously false, and upon a consideration of his report, the Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the 20th February 1965. The complainant, thereupon, went up in revision to the Court of Session, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated the 28th January 1966, set aside the dismissal of the complaint and directed further enquiry into the same.

3. On receipt of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the Sub-divisional Magistrate recorded an order on the 14th February 1966, directing a Magistrate, Mr. D. Chandra, to make enquiry into the complaint and to submit a report. Before Mr. Chandra, the complainant filed a petition stating that he had already examined his witnesses in course of the enquiry by Mr. Bagchi and that he did not intend to examine any more witness in support of his case, and he prayed that Mr. Chandra should hold the enquiry with reference to the evidence which the complainant had already adduced before Mr. Bagchi. Thereupon, Mr. Chandra submitted a report saying that a prima facie case had already been made out, as disclosed by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. It was on receipt of this report of Mr. Chandra that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order on the 28th April 1966.

4. Mr. Ghosal has put forward the contention that the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate is misconceived inasmuch as he had already made a direction for further enquiry, after the receipt of the Sessions Courts order, on the 14th February 1966 and, therefore, it was necessary that Mr. Chandra should have been directed to hold a further enquiry instead of merely relying upon the observations of the Sessions Court with respect to the evidence adduced by the complainant in course of Mr. Bagchis enquiry. Mr. Ghosal has relied upon a number of cases in support of his contention, namely, Udit Narayan Patwari V/s. Emperor, AIR 1938 Pat 369, Brijnath Sahai V/s. Babulal, 1956 Pat L R 215 : (1957) Cri L J 290), Annakali Debi V/s. Gyanendra Chakravarty, AIR 1938 Cal 22, Haroon Abdulla Kachchi V/s. Gajadhar Sukhdeo Marwadi, AIR 1940 Nag 128 and Emperor V/s. Maung Ba Thon, AIR 1931 Rang 225 (FB).

5. I do not consider it necessary to discuss the decisions at length, because, so far as this court is concerned, the legal position is well settled, as pointed out by Muhammad Noor, J. in Udit Narayan Patwaris case, AIR 1938 Pat 369 that the order by a superior court to hold further enquiry into a complaint which has been dismissed under S. 203 of the Code Criminal Procedure has acquired a technical meaning. It simply means reconsideration; but what more step has to be taken thereafter depends on the circumstances of each case. For example, if further enquiry has been directed into a complaint which was dismissed soon after the examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation, the order for further enquiry can be carried out by examining the witnesses whom the complainant has cited in support of his case. There may, however, be a case where the complaint