( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against an order passed on 30th October 1964 by Mr. C. H. Vasavada City Magistrate 7 Court Ahmedabad whereby the complaint given by the petitioner against opponent No. 1 in respect of offences under secs. 420 406 465 and 468 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be dismissed under sec. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 2 ) THE complaint was filed on 26-8-64 making various allegations against the opponents in respect of their having committed offences under secs. 406 465 468 and 420 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate passed an order on that very day for having an inquiry made by the Inspector of Police Karanj Police Station under sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was directed to expeditiously inquire in the matter and attach the papers alleged to have been taken from the complaint. The report was called for within a fortnight from the date of the order. Then on 3-10-64 another order is passed by the learned Magistrate whereby notice to the complainant as to why his complaint should not be dismissed under sec. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code was issued. Similarly he directed a notice to issue to show cause as to why process should not be issued against accused No. 1 in the case. Then on 30-10-1964 it appears that the complainant and his pleader were present. After hearing the learned advocate appearing for the complainant he passed the following order:-COMPLAINANT is present. I have gone through papers of investigation. I dismiss complaint U/s. 203 Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by that order passed on 30-10-1964 by Mr. C. H. Vasavada City Magistrate 7 Court Ahmedabad the complainant has come in revision.

( 3 ) THE contention made out by Mr. Divetia the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has not complied with the Provisions contained in sec. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code in so far as he has not recorded reasons for dismissing the complaint under sec. 203 of the Code. According to him therefore the order is illegal and a nullity and in no way curable under sec. 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sec. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as under :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 the complainant and the witnesses and the result of the investigation or inquiry (if any) under sec. 202 there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding. In such cases be shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

( 4 ) NOW apart from authority it appears plain from sec. 203 of the Code itself that if in his judgment there appears no ground for proceeding with the complaint he is entitled to dismiss the complaint but while doing so as provided therein he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. The use of the word shall contemplates mandatory character of the provision and consequently if no reasons are given for dismissal of the complaint that order would be one in contravention of that provision. The order becomes illegal and not irregular so as to say that it is curable under sec. 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I was referred to a case of Ratansha Kavasji v. Keki Behramsha and others A. I. R. 1945 Bombay 147 where the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the provisions of sec. 203 are imperative and failure to record reasons for dismissing a complaint would be disobedience of the law and not a mere irregularity. In order to comply with the mandatory provisions of sec. 203 the Magistrate must make it apparent in his order that he bad not omitted to apply his mind to the facts before he made the order dismissing a complaint. Another case referred to by Mr. Divetia is the one of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose A. I. R. 1963 Supreme Court 1430 where the Supreme Court has laid down that where the Magistrate h