( 1 ) ). A citizen who was arrested by a police officer has approached this Court by way of the present petition and has made very serious allegations against the concerned police officer. A notice pending admission was issued and the officer concerned was directed to produce the petitioner in person before the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor was asked in what proceeding and under what provision the petitioner had been arrested. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions from respondent No. 1 the P. S. I. who has made the arrest stated that a private complaint had been lodged against the petitioner in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate 3 Court and that the Magistrate concerned had directed the police officer to make investigation in respect of the complaint under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (Code ).

( 2 ) THE question that has surfaced in the back drop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances is: when upon receipt of a complaint of an offence a Magistrate instead of issuing process postpones the issue of process against the accused and directs a police officer to make an investigation for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding can the police officer in large of the investigation on his own place the accused under arrest ? Sec. 202 (1) in so far as material reads as under:-"202 (1) Any Magistrate on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under sec. 192 may if he thinks fit postpone the issue of prowess against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding"xx xx xx xx the language of sec. 202 clearly shows that (1) a Magistrate may direct a police officer to make an investigation when he decides to postpone the issue of the process and (2) the investigation may be directed for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. On a plain reading of the provision it is therefore clear that a police officer may be directed to investigate only when a decision to postpone the process is taken by the learned Magistrate. The process would eventually be issued on the receipt of the report of the investigating officer if the learned Magistrate reaches the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In that event the learned Magistrate would have to decide whether or not to issue a process and if so whether a summons should be issued or a warrant should be issued. the whole purpose of ordering the investigation is to satisfy himself whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter. After the receipt of the record if the Magistrate forms the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding then only the question of issue of a process and the nature of the process to be issued can arise. Till then such a question cannot arise. The decision to issue a process and the decision to issue either a summons or a warrant is a decision which is in the offing. Sec. 202 envisions that the question of process will be decided by the learned Magistrate and that the decision Will be taken after the receipt of the report of the investigating officer. Till then therefore there is no question of arresting an accused person. Such a question cannot arise at all. If the police officer were to place the accused under arrest he would be forestalling and foreclosing the decision of the learned Magistrate which for obvious reasons he cannot have the legal authority to do. For aught we know the learned Magistrate on the receipt of the report of the Magistrate may come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter and may decide not to issue any process. The police officer cannot