This revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No. 1/79 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, seeking to revise an order passed by the Magistrate on 25-6-79 issuing summons to the petitioners or in the alternative, to quash the complaint.

2. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint before the court below against the petitioners alleging that they committed an offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C. The Magistrate after taking cognizance on examining the complainant proceeded to conduct an enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for that purpose to a particular date on which date although the complainant was present, as the document necessary for the purpose of the case had not been received from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the case was adjourned directing that the witness will appear. On that day the complainant was absent and on his application the case was adjourned to another date, on which date as witnesses were absent, summonses were issued to witnesses 3 and 4 and the case was adjourned for the examination of the witnesses. On 20-3-79, the complainant and the two witnesses were present and they were examined as Cws. 1 and 2 and the case was posted for further examination of witnesses, and after two adjournments two more witnesses were examined. On 25-6-79, the Magistrate stating that he was of opinion that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, issued summonses to the accused, directing the complainant to deposit the process fees.

3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner at the time of hearing submitted that really it is the order passed on 25-6-79 that is sought to be revised in this case and that it was under a mistake that this date was shown as 25-7-79 in the petition. The counsel very strongly contended that the learned Magistrate has gone beyond his jurisdiction in conducting an enquiry of this nature by issuing summons to witnesses; that the order passed on 20-3-79 is in effect an order of dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. that there is no power of review conferred on him under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that having found that no case was made out against the accused by his order dated 20-3-79, he should have dismissed the complaint, and that the continuation of the proceedings after 20-3-79 amount to review of that order which is illegal.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the orders impugned are perfectly legal and within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate; that Section 202 Cr.P.C. confers ample power on the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry to find out the truth or falsity of the averments in the complaint; that the learned Magistrate has not reviewed any of the orders passed by him as contended on behalf of the petitioners; that it is also not correct that on 20-3-79 he passed an order stating that no case has been made out against the accused and that the order passed on 20-3-79 cannot, in any view, be considered or treated as an order coming under Section 203, Cr.P.C. The counsel also submitted that in a proceeding of this nature, the revision petitioners cannot ask for quashing the complaint.

5. The order passed by the Magistrate on 20-3-79 is as follows :

"Two witnesses present examined Cws. 1 and 2. The examination of these witnesses does not help the complainant to prove his case against all the accused. Posted for further examination of witnesses. Posted to 10-4-1979. Issue summons to No. 5."

This, no doubt, appears to be an unsatisfactory order. But the question is whether this amounts to an order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. In effect dismissing the complaint. The question of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt does not arise at this stage. What the learned Magistrate has to satisfy is whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the case. For determining whether process ha