Satya Brata Sinha, J.

1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners to quash an order dated 14.9.1989 passed by Sri R.D. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 146189, has been- referred to Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court in view of conflict in some observations made in the case of Sureshwar Saran V/s. State of Bihar and Arbind Kumar Sinha V/s. State of Bihar, on interpretation of section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a situation when the Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to another Magistrate for enquiry.

2. Before proceeding to consider the points involved in this case, the fact of the matter may be noticed.

3. A complaint-petition was filed by the opposite party No.2 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur alleging therein that the complainant got her daughter married with Nirup Ktindu in the year 1986, who started ill treatment with his wife after the said mairiage Nirup Kundu compelled her wife to write letters to her parents for further dowry which amounting up to Rs.50,000.00 . It is further alleged that in 1987 and 1988 the daughter of the complainant gave birth to two children. It was further alleged that the complainant, sent lawyers notice to the accused persons, and on 13.6.1989, all the accused persons came to the house of the complainant, criminally trespassed his house, gave threat to the complainant to pay the dowry of Rs. 50,000.00 within one week and got some papers signed by the complainant

4. By an order-dated 14.6.1989, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur transferred the case to the court of Sri P.C. Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate, for enquiry upon perusal of the complaint petition and registering the same:

5. It appears that the complainant was examined on oath by the transferee court Before the transferee court, two other witnesses Durga Rani Devi and Jayanti Kundu were also examined.

6. By an order dated 14.9.1989, the transferee court after discussing the evidence on record held as follows:

"From the above, it appears to be a prima facie case under Sec. 498(A), 386, 342 and 452134 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant is hereby directed to file requisite within a week for issuance of summon to the accused persons. Put up on 4.10.1989 for appearance. "

7. Mr. Gopal Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made two-fold submissions in support of this application. Firstly, the learned counsel contended that the impugned order dated 14.9.1989 passed by the transferee Magistrate is illegal inasmuch as the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to transfer the case in purported exercise of this power conferred upon him u/s. 192 of the Code of Criminal-Procedure without taking cognizance of the offence. Learned counsel contended that the cognizance is taken by a Magistrate only when the complainant is examined on solemn affirmations. Learned counsel submitted that this would be apparent from the provisions contained in Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon Cooli Gangadharam and others V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Jitan Tewari V/s. State of Bihar and another.

8. Learned counsel next contended that in any event, the complaint petition as also evidence, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence as against the petition inasmuch as from a perusal of the complaint petition as also the evidence on record, it would be evident that the allegations have been made primarily as against the accused No.1 meaning thereby the husband of the daughter of the complainant Nirup Kundu.

9. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposite party No.2 and Mr. K. K. Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel for the State on the other hand, contended that in the insta