1. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Sub Magistrate, Tirur alleging that he was in possession of the property mentioned in the complaint in R.S. 35/11 of Rayirmangalam amsom, Tirur Taluk, that on 20-1-1964 the two accused trespassed into the paramba and demolished a small but belonging to him and thereby committed offences punishable under S.447 and 426, I.P.C. The sworn statement was taken and the case was numbered as C.C. 77 of 1964. But he postponed the issue of process and sent the case to the Sub Inspector of Police, Tanur for enquiry under S.202 Cr. P.C. The Sub Inspector registered a case, questioned witnesses and sent the record of investigation to the Sub Magistrate. On a perusal of the records, learned Magistrate ordered that the case would proceed against the first accused and ordered summons to be issued to him. As regards the second accused, learned Magistrate stated that he is not a necessary party to this case and ordered that summons need not be issued to him. I do not understand what the Magistrate means by saying that one of the accused in a complaint is not a necessary party. The order purports to be one of dismissal of the complaint aga