I.A. Ansari, J.

1. With the help of this application, made under Section 482, Cr PC, the petitioner, who is accused in Complaint Case No. A 64 C/2008, pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangiya, has sought for setting aside and quashing the order, dated 27.11.2008, whereby the learned Magistrate has, upon taking the view that a prima facie case, under Section 420, IPC, has been made out, directed to issue summons against the accused for his appearance. The case of the complainant is, in brief, thus :

The complainant is a wholesale dealer of potatoes and carries on his business under the name and style of M/s. Assam Traders, Rangiya. The complainant was required to store potatoes in cold storage. For that purpose, the complainant approached the accused-petitioner for keeping his potato in the cold storage of the accused-petitioner, the cold storage being located at Changsari, Kamrup. Accordingly, an unregistered agreement was executed between the complainant, on the one hand, and the accused-petitioner, on the other, on 24.03.2008, and, as per the agreement, the accused-petitioner had promised to take utmost care to maintain the temperature at zero degree centigrade, in the chamber, with a fluctuation of (+,-) 4 degree centigrade within the period from 25.03.2008 to 05.04.2008; but, on 19.08.2008 and 20.08.2008, when the complainant went to take delivery of his potatoes, stored in the cold storage of the complainant found the potatoes in perishable condition. The complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint, in writing, alleging that the petitioner had not kept the complainant's potatoes safely in terms of the agreement, which the parties had agreed into, and violated thereby the terms of the contract. The complainant has further alleged that the value of the potatoes was approximately Rs. 2,60,000/-, the accused had deliberately caused damage to the complainant's potatoes and shown contributory negligence towards storage of potato. The accused has, thus, according to the complainant, committed, inter alia, mischief, criminal breach of trust and cheating.

2. I have heard Mr. A. Sharma, Learned Counsel, for the accused-petitioner, and Ms. D. Buragohain, Learned Counsel, for the complainant-opposite party. I have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. While considering the present application, made under Section 482, Cr PC, it needs to be borne in mind that cognizance of offence is taken under Section 190 Cr PC and it is only upon taking of cognizance of offence that Section 200, Cr PC comes into play, which makes it mandatory for the Magistrate, who takes cognizance of an offence, on a complaint, to examine, on oath, the complainant and the complainant's witnesses present, if any, and also to reduce, into writing, the substance of such examination except where the complaint is made by a Court or by a public servant in discharge of his official duties or in purported exercise of his official duties or if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192, Cr PC.

4. If one keeps the provisions of Section 200, Cr PC in mind, it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose of examination of the complainant and his witnesses present, if any, is obviously to determine not the veracity or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint, but to determine as to how far the allegations, made in the complaint, are supported by the statements, which may be recorded under Section 200, Cr PC. If the Magistrate finds that the statements, so made, are sufficient to issue process against one or more accused, there is no impediment, on his part, in issuing process in exercise of his power under Section 204, Cr PC, which provides that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be a summons case, he shall issue summons for attendance of the accused or, if t