( 1 ) ). This application is directed against the order of investigation under S. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (code for short) and to quash the charge-sheet submitted by the Police on completion of the investigation.

( 2 ) ). Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner and two others on 21-3-1995 in the Court of J. M. F. C. , 3rd Court, Bhavnagar.

( 3 ) ). Facts alleged to constitute offences are as under :- respondent No. 2 - complainant is the Commission Agent in vegetables, in particular onion, at Market Yard of Bhavnagar. Petitioner used to purchase onion from respondent No. 2 on credit and every time lump sum payment was made. From the allegation in the complaint, the sale was on credit for a month or so. On 21-1-1994 petitioner purchased onion of the value of Rs. 27,31,739. 00. Petitioner had paid Rs. 19,94,322. 52 against the same and the balance of Rs. 7,37,417. 51 remained due. According to the respondent No. 2, despite repeated demands, false promises to pay were given. Petitioner came to Bhavnagar from Kanpur on 10-3- 1995. When he went to the shop of respondent No. 2, he made a demand for the balance due. Petitioner did not give proper reply but started speaking irrelevantly and abused him. Along with the petitioner-accused, there was some unknown person called as Gangu. Thus, petitioner and two others gave filthy abuses to the respondent no. 2 and also gave threat to kill the respondent No. 2 if money is demanded again. Petitioner-accused also gave 2-3 slaps to the respondent No. 2 and ran away after giving filthy abuses. Based on these facts, a complaint is filed under Secs. 323, 406, 420, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of I. P. C. Learned Magistrate ordered enquiry under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code and the Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet under the said sections complained of. It is prayed to quash investigation and submission of charge-sheet by this petition.

( 4 ) ). According to the petitioners learned Advocate, the facts as stated in the complaint by themselves do not constitute any offence and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate for investigation under S. 156 (3) is beyond the scope of the provision of law inasmuch as it suffers from vice of non-application of mind and also without jurisdiction thereby. Submission of charge-sheet by the police on these facts is also bad in law as not warranted by the facts stated by the complainant and the same is liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) ). Respondent No. 2 is represented by learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt. However, he is absent when the matter is called out. Therefore, this matter is disposed of after hearing the learned Advocate of the petitioner and learned A. P. P. Mr. Bukhari for the State.

( 6 ) ). Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi for the petitioner contended that the facts stated in the complaint, even if taken as true, do not constitute an offence under any of the provisions of the Penal Code. In the charge-sheet, the whole of the complaint filed by the complainant is reproduced. In para 8 of the complaint, it is stated that on 10-3-1995, petitioner-accused had come to the shop of the complainant. He talked about the accounts. He then talked irrelevant things and gave filthy abuses. There were two other persons with the accused and all the three were giving abuses and also gave threat to kill the complainant. Based on these facts, it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner has committed cheating and a breach of trust in the purchase of a commodity, namely, onion on 22-1-1994. In Gujarat, giving threat to kill a person is a cognizable offence and a non-bailable one. Complainant, instead of approaching the Police immediately and the doctor at the earliest, though was given 2-3 slaps on his face, approached the Judicial Magistrate next day by way of a private complaint. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi contended that before exercise of power under S. 202 no doubt the learned Magistrate