The necessity for the Magistrate to elicit all facts in an enquiry under S.200 without conducting a meticulous cross-examination and the requirement to provide reasons for the dismissal of a complaint under S.203 Cr. P. C.

1. This revision petition is filed by the complainant in a private complaint, S. T. No. 1762/78, on the tile of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Quilon, seeking to revise an order passed by that court dismissing the complaint against the 5th accused in the case and issuing summons to accused 1 to 4 only under S.323 read with S.34 I.P.C.

2. The complainant was said to be at the material time working as a pharmacist at the E. S. I. Dispensary, Chathanoor. The 5th accused is the Additional Insurance Medical Officer who was in charge of the dispensary and the 1st accused is the Sub Inspector of Police, Chathanoor. The second accused is the Head Constable and accused 3 and 4 are constables attached to the Chathannoor Police Station.

3. It is said that on a complaint made by the 5th accused alleging theft of medicine from the dispensary with the connivance and instigation of the revision petitioner herein, the revision petitioner was arrested on 10-7-1978 from the dispensary.

4. The allegations in the complaint filed by the revision petitioner are that on 10-7-78 at about 9 a. m. in pursuance of phone call by the 5th accused, accused 1 to 4 came to the dispensary in a taxi car, abused the revision petitioner in obscene language and also caught hold of him and belaboured him. It is alleged that he was beaten, fisted and kicked and subjected to various other tortures and that all these were done at the instance of the 5th accused who was present there, it is also alleged that the revision petitioner was dragged to the taxi car and then taken to the police station and while in the car also he was tortured like anything and after reaching the police station he was kicked and beaten successively by the constables in the presence of the Sub Inspector of Police. There are other allegations also in the complaint. After taking the sworn statement of the revision petitioner, as the Magistrate found that the complaint tiled before him contained an additional accused who was not mentioned or implicated by the complainant in his statement given before the judicial Magistrate of Second Class, directed the complainant to produce witnesses 1 and 2 mentioned in the schedule of witnesses to ascertain the veracity of the complaint. After examining these two witnesses, the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue summons only against accused 1 to 4 under S.323 read with S.34 I. P. C. It is this order that is assailed before this Court in revision.

5. Attacking this order, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction by meticulously cross-examining the complainant while taking his sworn statement, that this is a serious illegality and that in any view, the order impugned being not a speaking order without giving reason or ground for dismissing the complaint against the 5th accused and proceeding against accused 1 to 4 alone and that too under S.323 read with S.34 I. P. C., is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the complainant was in the hospital for more than 21 days and during this period, he was unable to pursue his ordinary avocations and that it is clear from the sworn statement of the revision petitioner that he was unable to do work for two months and therefore the offence disclosed was clearly one under S.325 I.P.0 and not under S.323 I. P. C.

6. The learned advocate appearing for the first accused submitted that there is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate while recording the sworn statement of the complainant; that a reading of the sworn statement will show that there was no meticulous cross-examination as alleged and therefore on that ground the order in question cannot be interfered with. The counsel further submitted that the exaggerated versions in the complaint itself are sufficient to show or indicate that the complaint is false; that this complaint is filed as a counter-blast to the