C.L. SONI, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.7.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Inquiry Case No.33 of 1999 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner is dismissed under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1.1 The petitioner filed the complaint on 2.7.1999 against respondent No.2 and 3 alleging that the respondents No.2 and 3 are father and son and they created forged documents for the purpose of getting admission in Ayurvedik College. It is stated in the complaint that though respondent NO.3 had passed 12th Standard in Science Stream in four trial, still, he presented false certificate of passing the examination within two trial only. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2, by misuse of his position, got admission of respondent no.3 on the basis of forged certificate. Thus, respondent no.2 and 3 conspired for creation of fabricated and forged certificate in collusion with each other, got the admission in Gulab Kunvarba Ayurvedik College at Jamnagar on the basis of such forged certificate and by making misrepresentation on the basis of such forged certificate. The complainant has thus alleged commission of offence under section 381,409, 465, 471-A, 114 and Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code [herein after referred to as “the IPC” for short] against respondents No.2 and 3.

2. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 2.7.99 under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as “the Code” for short) directing the investigation to be made by the police officer.

3. It appears that pursuant to the said directions, the PI CID Crime, Ahmedabad City Unit made investigation and submitted his report dated 2.3.2000. According to the police investigation, the offence of issuance of false certificate had taken place in the School at Ghatlodia Ahmedabad and such false certificate was utilized for admission at Ayurvedic College Jamnagar and for the forged certificate as also for admission on the basis of such forged certificate, along with the respondent No.2 and 3, other persons were also involved.

4. Learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code on two grounds, one is to the effect that except respondent No.3, other accused persons were Government servants and no prior sanction is taken for filing the complaint and the second is that the bogus certificate was issued for the purpose of getting admission in the College at Jamnagar and same were obtained during the service as Director at Gandhinagar and therefore offence did not appear to have taken place in the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.

5. I have heard learned advocate Mr. B.S. Supehia for the petitioner and Mr. K.L.Pandya, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for the respondent No.2 and 3.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Supehia for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint under section 203 of the Code on both the grounds. Learned advocate Mr. Supehia would submit that section 203 of the Code requires the learned Magistrate to consider the material on record so as to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint or not. Mr. Supehia submitted that once the learned Magistrate has issued direction for police investigation under section 202 of the Code and once the police has completed investigation and placed on record its report, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to consider the report placed on record and then to decide whether to proceed with the complaint or not. Learned advocate Mr. Supehia submitted that the learned Magistrate has not considered the material on record and, therefore, dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint was bad in law.

6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Supehia submitted that the