The Magistrate holding an enquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code has power to accept a plea of self-defence which was supported by the report of the enquiring officer and statement of witnesses and to dismiss the complaint without issue of process.

( 1 ) THE petitioner (Mr. Puri) is aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the dismissal by the learned S. D. M. Delhi preferred against him under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondent (Dr. K. L. Ahuja ). The learned S. D. M. held an enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, during which he examined seven witnesses on behalf of the complainant and dismissed the said complaint. As against the said dismissal, Dr. Ahuja preferred a revision petition to the Additional Sessions Judge which was accepted.

( 2 ) IT is seen from the records that even though the learned Additional Sessions Judge had merely ordered issue of notice to the respondent in that revision, (described as State) appearance was entered in that criminal case on behalf of the present petitioner. An objection was raised, on behalf of the complainant, to the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing counsel for the present petitioner, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered it appropriate to invite his counsel (who was present) also to address arguments.

( 3 ) IT has been urged on behalf of the present petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge acted erroneously in setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaint when the learned Magistrate opined that there were not sufficient grounds for proceeding further with the complaint.

( 4 ) WHILE dismissing the complaint the learned Magistrate observed as follows:

"in view of the discussion above, the version of the complainant does not appear to be reliable. In such cases, it is the accepted principle of law that evidence must be of a character which would induce the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just mind to conclude that no other inference than that of misconduct can be drawn. Such evidence is lacking in the present case. Mere possibility that the offence might have been committed in such cases is not enough. "

( 5 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence and the approach of the learned Magistrate concluded as follows:

i am unable to sustain the dismissal of the complaint in the present case by the learned trial court. The approach adopted is wholly unreasonable, and not what the law should permit. I, therefore, while accepting this revision send back the case to the learned District Magistrate, Delhi, with direction to hold or get held through a Magistrate subordinate to him further enquiry into this complaint".

( 6 ) DR. K. L. Ahuja had married Mrs. (Dr.) R. R. Ahuja in the year 1949 when Mrs. Ahuja was working as a Lady Doctor in the Cantonment Board Hospital, Delhi Cantonment. Mr. Puri was the Deputy Director, Cantonment Lines, Ministry of Defence; about that time, though he is stated to have been transferred from Delhi prior to their marriage, which was according to Hindu rites and customs. According to the husband, in July 1967, he came to know that his wife had illicit relations with Mr. Puri. Some neighbours, including Mrs. Puri, had complained to him about Mrs. Ahuja and Mr. Puri often being seen together. Mr. Ahuja advised his wife to put an end to her relationship with Mr. Puri, to which she agreed at first. In fact, he even asked Mr. Puri not to telephone to his wife. There are three growh up children of their marriage two of whom are girls.

( 7 ) MATTERS are stated to have come to ft head when on 13th October, 1967, a telephone call is said to have been received at Karol Bagh, where Mrs. Ahuja is running a Maternity Home; the husband, who had his own clinic in the Cantonment, was also doing some professional work at the maternity clinic, Karol Bagh. The call was answered by the nurse (Parkash) when Mr. Ahuja took the receiver from her and heard Mr. Puri asking about the programme for the evening mistaking the nurse to be Mrs. Ahuja. When Mr. Ahuja questioned Mrs. Ahuja she retorted that he had no right to tell her anything. When Mr. Ahuja told her that he heard the person ad