( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed by the complainant for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Himatnagar directing investigation under sec. 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the P. S. I. Himatnagar instead of issuing process.

( 2 ) THE complainant is the Group Branch Manager of Himatnagar Branch of the firm named Laxmichand Bhagaji which carries on business of advancing loans on hire-purchase agreements etc. At the relevant time i. e. in the years 1932-83 and 1983-84 the accused was working as a Group Branch Manager at Himatnagar. It is the allegation of the complainant that the accused taking some benefit committed criminal breach of trust by advancing a loan of Rs. 12 lacs to M/s. Govind Jeku and Co. at 15% instead of advancing it at the interest rate of 18% by taking undue advantage of his position by submitting a false report to the Head office a loan of Rs. 2 50 0 was given to the firm M/s. Krishna Metal Works; in 1983 there was one Incentive Scheme and after recovering the incentive commission dishonestly the deposit amount was refunded; a false entry is made in the books of account showing that Rs. 25 0 were paid by way of loan to M/s. Arun Marketing; in breach of the rules framed by the firm dishonestly loan at the lower interest rate is given to certain persons by getting illegal monetary benefits and various amounts as alleged in the complaint are falsely debited as expenses. After receiving the complaint the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant Harshadbhai Chunilal Patel. Thereafter he ordered that the P. S. I. Himatnagar be directed to investigate the complaint under sec. 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This order was objected to by the learned advocate for the complainant. His objection was overruled by holding that to find out the modus operandi he had order of the police investigation and there is no question of holding detailed inquiry by the Court. Being aggrieved by the said order the complainant has filed this revision application under sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 3 ) THE learned advocate Mr. A. D. Shah was permitted to intervene in the matter and he vehemently submitted that now-a-days there is tendency of the Judicial Magistrate to refer all the cases to the police for investigation under sec. 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without applying mind to the facts of the complaint. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in this case also the learned Judicial Magistrate has straightway referred the matter to the police for investigation without applying his mind to the fact that almost all documents were in the possession of the complainant and there was no question of referring the matter for any investigation. As such according to him no investigation was necessary.

( 4 ) ONCE the complaint is filed under sec. 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate has three options open to him viz. ; (1) to take cognizance of the offence and to record the statements of the complainant and witnesses present under sec. 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter if in his opinion there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he may dismiss the complaint under sec. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If there is sufficient ground he may issue process under sec. 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (2) to take cognizance of the case and to hold an inquiry as contemplated under sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code without issuing process. He may inquire 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 with the matter. If he arrives at the conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding he shall dismiss the complaint by recording reasons for doing so. If he arrives at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for